1980  8TH  ST. 
RiVKftsiDE,    CALIF. 

BaONSLNOVILTlES-GREETlNQ    CAR 


The  Trial  of 

SCOTT  NEARING 

and 

THE  AMERICAN 
SOCIALIST   SOCIETY 


Pressing  Judge  -JULIUS  M.   MAYER 

ATTORNEYS-.— 

for  the  Government  For  the  Defense 

EARI.  B.  BARNES  SEYMOUR  STEDMAN  of  Chicago 

S.  JOHN  BLOCK  of  New  York 
WALTER  NELLES  of  New  Tfork 
I.   M.   SACKIN  o/Nnv  York 


UNITED    STATES    DISTRICT    COURT    FOR 
THE  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  NEW  YORK 


•  New  York  City 
February  5th  to  19th,   1919 


Copyright  1919 

by  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science 
New   York    City 


Strathmore  Press,  Inc. 
New  York  City 


Introduction 

The  printed  record  of  Scott  Nearing's  trial  is  of 
genuine  value,  not  only  because  of  the  defendant's 
lucid  exposition  of  the  philosophy  of  Socialism,  but 
also  because  it  presents  an  authentic  record  of  an 
American  political  trial.  In  the  venerable  court  room 
of  the  United  States  District  Court,  in  the  City  of  New 
York,  a  prominent  Socialist,  a  scholar  and  writer,  was 
on  trial,  ostensibly  on  the  charge  of  a  grave  felony. 
For  days  he  spoke  to  twelve  men  "good  and  true,"  his 
fellow  citizens  chosen  to  pass  judgment  on  his  guilt 
or  innocence,  and  to  a  judge  officiating  as  the  repre- 
sentative incarnate  of  the  austere  majesty  of  American 
law.  He  spoke  technically  in  his  own  defense.  But 
he  did  not  defend  himself.  His  personal  conduct  and 
motives,  his  personal  interest  and  fate  were  barely 
touched  on.  They  were  the  merest  incidents  of  the 
trial.  It  was  of  larger  and  more  vital  things  that 
Scott  Nearing  spoke.  He  told  of  the  wrongs  and 
sufferings  of  the  world  of  labor,  and  exposed  the  or- 
ganized crime  of  its  oppressors.  With  uncontroverti- 
ble  facts  and  figures  and  irresistible  logic  he  arraigned 
the  ruling  classes  of  all  countries  as  the  authors  re- 
sponsible for  the  ruin  of  Europe  and  the  misery  of  the 
world.  He  spoke  of  the  aspirations  and  ideals  of  the 
submerged  masses  of  the  people  everywhere,  and  of 
their  determined  struggles  to  redeem  mankind  from 
the  age-long  horrors  of  oppression  and  slaughter.  He 
expounded  the  gospel  of  International  Socialism  under 
the  solemn  sanction  of  the  formal  oath  and  under  the 
partial  guidance  of  the  prosecuting  attorney  and  the 
presiding  judge.  He  proved  the  red  creed  of  human 

3 

2055046 


brotherhood  in  accordance  with  all  the  technical  re- 
quirements of  legal  procedure. 

The  trial  of  Scott  Nearing  was  but  one  of  many 
similar  performances  enacted  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  during  the  war  and — after  it.  The  trials 
of  Eugene  V.  Debs,  Rose  Pastor  Stokes  and  Kate 
Richards  O'Hare;  of  Victor  Berger,  Adolph  Germer 
and  other  officials  of  the  Socialist  Party;  of  Max 
Eastman  and  his  co-workers  on  the  staff  of  the 
"Masses" ;  the  wholesale  trials  of  the  I.  W.  W.  leaders, 
were  all  in  principle  identical  with  that  of  Scott  Near- 
ing,  and  it  was  largely  fortuitous  that  the  latter  was 
acquitted,  while  all  the  former  were  convicted  and 
sentenced  to  savagely  heavy  prison  terms. 

Not  a  single  enemy  agent  was  convicted  under  the 
provisions  of  the  so-called  Espionage  Law,  which  was 
ostensibly  enacted  to  cope  with  the  operations  of  the 
German  spy  system  in  the  United  States  during  the 
war,  but  more  than  one  thousand  prosecutions  were 
initiated  under  that  act  against  radicals  and  pacifists. 
And  yet  Thomas  W.  Gregory,  the  U.  S.  Attorney 
General  responsible  for  the  prosecutions,  solemnly  and 
seriously  asserts  that  the  persons  so  tried  and  con- 
victed are  "in  no  sense  political  prisoners."  If  the 
term  "political  prisoner"  as  distinguished  from  the 
common  criminal  convict  denotes  a  person  jailed  for 
the  offense  of  holding  and  expressing  political,  social 
or  economic  views  opposed  to  those  of  the  party  in 
control  or  classes  in  power,  then  the  numerous  persons 
convicted  individually  and  "en  bloc"  in  political,  eco- 
nomic and  religious  groups,  under  the  Espionage  Law 
and  now  held  in  federal  prisons,  are  beyond  cavil  and 
quibble  political  prisoners,  and  the  prosecutions  insti- 
tuted under  that  act  were  and  are  political  trials. 

To  judge  from  all  indications  these  trials  are  only 
the  harbingers  of  an  era  of  systematic  governmental 


persecution  of  all  radical  opinion  and  radical  move- 
ments in  the  United  States.  Even  before  the  sinister 
Espionage  Law  has  ceased  to  serve  its  purpose,  new 
laws,  more  candid  and  more  drastic  are  proposed  in 
order  to  stifle  the  voice  of  the  rising  working  class 
rebellion,  and  where  there  is  no  convenient  statute  to 
cover  the  persecution  of  radical  dissenters  with  even 
the  most  flimsy  cloak  of  legality,  our  authorities  na- 
tional and  local,  have  shown  little  hesitancy  in  sub- 
stituting arbitrary  might  for  legal  warrant.  In  the 
capitalist  Soviets  of  America  the  dictature  of  the 
bourgeoisie  reigns  supreme. 

The  era  of  wholesale  and  relentless  persecution  is 
neither  unexpected  nor  entirely  unwelcome  to  the 
Socialists  of  the  United  States.  It  is  an  unavoidable 
phase  of  historic  development  through  which  the 
Socialist  movement  of  every  advanced  country  has  had 
to  pass.  It  marks  a  point  in  theN  growth  of  the  pro- 
letarian sentiment  of  revolt  which  strikes  the  ruling 
classes  mad  with  fear  and  drives  them  to  unreasoned 
and  frantic  efforts  to  strangle  an  irresistible  social  and 
intellectual  tide  by  sheer  brute  force  and  physical  vio- 
lence. Such  persecutions  eventually  collapse  in  the 
inevitable  reaction  which  they  are  bound  to  produce 
against  their  own  excesses.  Their  effect  on  -the  So- 
cialist movement  is  of  infinite  value  in  purifying,  uni- 
fying and  extending  the  movement. 

It  is  only  a  few  decades  since  the  government  of  the 
autocrat  of  all  Russia  afforded  the  young  and  ideal- 
istic Socialist  propagandists  of  his  empire  the  oppor- 
tunity to  preach  the  gospel  of  the  Social  revolution 
through  the  medium  of  the  famous  political  mass  trials 
of  the  seventies  of  the  last  century,  and  since  he 
adopted  the  policy  of  "crushing"  Socialism  by  hanging, 
exiling  and  imprisoning  the  Socialists. 

It  is  barely  a  generation  since  the  German  Imperial 


Government  under  the  leadership  of  the  Iron  Chan- 
cellor inaugurated  the  twelve-year  governmental  cam- 
paign for  the  suppression  of  Socialist  propaganda 
through  the  action  of  the  courts  and  of  the  police. 

Today  the  Romanoffs  and  the  Hohenzollerns  have 
been  swept  into  oblivion  and  their  political,  industrial 
and  military  junkers  shorn  of  their  power.  In  Russia 
the  proletariat  governs,  and  in  Germany  the  contest 
for  the  control  of  the  former  Empire  lies  solely  be- 
tween the  Socialists  of  the  different  schools. 

And  now  it  is  capitalist  America  that  is  undertaking 
the  hazardous  task  of  destroying  Socialism  by  force, 
plunging  into  the  adventure  with  all  the  enthusiasm  of 
boundless  ignorance,  with  all  the  ruthlessness  of 
blinded  hate  and  with  defiant  heedlessness  of  the 
warnings  of  the  past. 

Verily  the  rulers  can  never  learn  the  lessons  of 
history. 

t  MORRIS    HILLQUIT. 


Saranac  Lake,  March  12,  1919. 


The  Indictment 

Scott  Nearingand  the  American  Socialist  Society  were 
indicted  by  a  Federal  Grand  Jury  in  the  District  Court 
of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  New 
York  in  April,  1918.  They  were  not  tried  until  Feb- 
ruary, 1919.  The  indictment  contained  four  counts. 
The  first  count  charged  that,  while  the  United  States 
was  at  war  with  the  Imperial  German  Government, 
the  defendants  unlawfully  conspired  to  violate  the 
provisions  of  Section  3  of  Title  1  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, approved  on  June  15th,  1917,  commonly  known 
as  the  Espionage  Law,  by  unlawfully  agreeing  to 
cause  and  attempt  to  cause  insubordination,  disloyalty, 
mutiny  and  refusal  of  duty  in  the  military  and  naval 
forces  of  the  United  States  through  the  publication 
of  the  pamphlet  known  as  "The  Great  Madness."  The 
second  count  of  the  indictment  charged  that  the  de- 
fendants conspired  unlawfully  and  wilfully  to  obstruct 
the  recruiting  and  enlistment  service  of  the  United 
States  by  the  publication  of  said  pamphlet.  The  third 
count  charged  the  defendants  with  attempting  to  cause 
insubordination,  disloyalty,  mutiny  and  refusal  of  duty 
in  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the  United  States 
by  the  publication  of  the  said  pamphlet.  And  the 
fourth  count  charged  the  defendants  with  unlawfully 
obstructing  the  recruiting  and  enlistment  service  of 
the  United  States  by  the  publication  of  the  pamphlet. 


The  Jury 


Thursday  morning,  February  6th,  found  the  Federal 
court  room  on  the  third  floor  of  the  old  Post  Office 
Building  filled  with  the  talesmen  from  among  whom 
the  Jury  was  to  be  selected.  The  members  of  the  tale 
were  characteristic  jurors;  men  of  the  type  that  have 
been  trying  Espionage  Act  cases  all  over  the  United 
States. 

They  were  for  the  most  part  old,  retired,  comfort- 
able men, — men  who  had  been  well  treated  by  life. 
Most  of  them  had  struggled,  but  successfully.  They 
had  won  out  in  the  brutal  melee  of  industrialism  and 
by  rising  from  its  depths  they  had  escaped  many  of 
its  worst  consequences. 

Thirty  talesmen  in  all  were  examined  in  picking  the 
jury.  The  first  was  about  70  years  of  age;  the  second 
about  55;  the  third  about  50;  and  the  fourth  about  65; 
the  fifth  gave  his  age  as  38 ;  the  sixth  gave  his  as  55 ; 
the  seventh  was  about  the  same  age ;  the  eighth  gave 
his  age  as  59 ;  the  ninth  stated  his  age  as  38 ;  the  tenth 
as  65;  the  eleventh  as  60.  These  men  were  typical 
as  far  as  one  could  judge  of  the  entire  panel. 

Most  of  the  talesmen  were  foreign  born  and  the 
group  contained  a  surprisingly  large  proportion  of 
Germans  and  Austrians.  Among  the  first  thirteen 
talesmen  examined  seven  were  born  in  Germany  or 
in  Austria.  One  of  the  talesmen  came  from  Posen ; 
another  from  Scotland ;  a  third  from  Berlin. 

The  talesmen  examined  were  business  men — active 
and  retired.  Not  a  single  wage-earner  appeared 
among  the  first  thirty  names  drawn.  The  first  tales- 
man examined  was  a  real  estate  dealer;  the  second 


was  a  corporation  official ;  the  third  was  a  diamond 
merchant;  the  fourth  a  retired  merchant;  the  fifth  a 
steel  contractor;  the  sixth  a  repairer  of  organs;  the 
seventh  a  retired  grocer ;  the  eighth,  retired ;  the  ninth, 
a  corporation  official;  the  tenth,  a  retired  merchant; 
the  eleventh,  a  retired  jobber  in  foreign  merchandise ; 
the  twelfth,  a  real  estate  man ;  the  thirteenth,  a  manu- 
facturer of  laces  and  embroidery ;  the  fourteenth,  an 
electrical  jobber;  the  fifteenth,  a  retired  contractor. 
The  list  ran  on  in  this  way  throughout  the  entire 
thirty. 

All  of  the  talesmen,  except  two,  expressed  an  utter 
ignorance  of  Socialism  and  displayed  a  disinclination 
to  political  action,  which  was  truly  astonishing. 
Talesman  Number  1,  born  in  Scotland,  stated  that  he 
had  "never  voted  in  his  life."  Others  voted  but  took 
no  interest  in  politics.  A  few  were  able  to  name  the 
candidates  at  the  last  election. 

Most  of  the  talesmen  examined  had  heard  of  Social- 
ism. One  of  them  had  read  a  dozen  copies  of  the  New 
York  Call.  One  or  two  of  them  had  read,  casually, 
articles  or  books  on  Socialism.  The  member  of  the 
tale  who  had  read  the  Call  on  various  occasions  was 
challenged  by  the  Prosecution,  which  apparently  re- 
garded him  as  unfitted  to  sit  on  such  a  case. 

Every  member  of  the  tale  who  was  examined,  stated 
that  he  favored  the  entrance  of  the  United  States  into 
the  war.  All  of  the  members  were  likewise  in  favor 
of  conscription  as  a  method  of  raising  an  army,  al- 
though one  or  two  were  not  particularly  enthusiastic 
on  the  subject  of  the  draft.  One  answered  that  he  was 
in  favor  of  conscription,  but  added  "I  don't  believe 
in  having  anything  to  do  with  it  myself."  Another 
one  stated,  "As  long  as  no  one  wanted  to  enlist  that 
was  the  only  way  to  raise  an  army."  Barring  such 
slight  expressions  of  opinion,  the  sentiment  of  the  Jury 

10 


on  this  subject  was  unanimous. 

After  two  days  during  which  thirty  persons  were 
examined  the  Jury  was  completed.  It  was  constituted 
as  follows : 

1.  Irving  D.  Zimmer,  55  years  of  age,  born  in  New 
York ;  a  salesman  for  malted  extracts.     Mr.  Zimmer, 
who  had  a  daughter  in  the  service  stated,  "I  would 
have  liked  tc^keep  out  of  it  (the  war)  if  we  could,  but 
I  did  not  see  any  way  to  keep  out  of  it."    He  was  "not 
interested"  in  politics.     To  the  question,  "Have  you 
any  near  friends  or  relations,  who  happen  to  be  Social- 
ists?" he  answered  "No."    Mr.  Zimmer  stated  that  he 
owned  some  bonds. 

2.  Stanley  R.  Ketchem,  about  50  years  of  age ;  was 
born  in  the  United  States.    He  was  officially  connected 
with    the    Lackawanna-Wyoming    Transit    Co.,    the 
Carolina-Tennessee  Power  Co.,  the  Caroline  Construc- 
tion Co.,  the  Union  Metallurgical  Co. 

3.  Gustave  Gumpertz,  retired,  was  formerly  a  man- 
ufacturer of  clothing.     He  had  been  retired  for  three 
years.     One  of  his  sons  had  volunteered  for  the  ser- 
vice.    Mr.   Gumpertz  was  born  in  Alsace.     He  had 
been  in  the  United  States  for  over  60  years. 

4.  Joseph  Hecht,  a  steel  contractor,  38  years  of  age, 
had  been  associated  with  the  National  Iron  and  Steel 
Co.,  for  fifteen  years.    His  company  had  had  some  war 
contracts.    Mr.  Hecht  was  born  in  Austria,  and  stated 
that  he  had  read  nothing  on  Socialism. 

5.  Samuel  R.  Welser,  retired,  was  formerly  a  con- 
tractor for  electrical  and  metal  \vork.    Mr.  Welser  was 
American  born  of  American  parents,  and  had  lived  in 
New  York  for  40  years.     He  was  about  60  years  of 
age.     Asked  about  his  property  holdings,  he  replied 
that  he  owned  some  stock.    Asked  whether  they  were 
war  stocks,  he  replied,  that  "there  has  been  no  increase 
in   dividends."      During   the   war   he    was   an    active 

11 


worker  in  the  Red  Cross. 

6.  William  Edebohls,  a  retired  grocer,  born  in  Ger- 
many, had  been  in  the  United  States  for  over  40  years. 
Mr.  Edebohls  was  about  60  years  of  age.    When  asked 
about  the  declaration  of  war  he  answered,  "At  the 
time  I  did  not  think  anything  of  it."    A  son  was  work- 
ing in  the  Brooklyn  Navy  Yard.    Like  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  panel,  he  had  read  little  or  nothing  about 
Socialism. 

7.  Sam  Gordon,  an  importer  and  exporter  of  mer- 
chandise, born  in  Russia  and  about  55  years  of  age. 
When  asked  as  to  his  reading,  Mr.  Gordon  promptly 
replied,  "The  Times  and  the  Journal  of  Commerce." 

8.  Alfred    W.    Trotter,    a    civil    and    construction 
engineer  for  more  than  40  years ;  president  of  a  build- 
ing company ;  born  in  the  United  States ;  63  years  of 
age.    Mr.  Trotter  was  a  veteran  of  the  Seventh  Regi- 
ment; had  read  very  little  about  Socialism,  but  pro- 
fessed an  interest  in  it.     He  stated  it  as  his  opinion 
that  Socialism  would  not  work  "because  it  was  against 
human  nature."     He  added,  that  he  would  be  inter- 
ested to  hear  an  exposition  of  the  Socialist  philosophy. 

9.  Solomon  Marcus,  a  retired  merchant;  65  years 
of  age;  born  in  Russia;  had  been  in  the  United  States 
since  1868.    When  asked  as  to  his  reading  he  answered, 
"I  don't  read  books." 

10.  Albert  W.  Walburn,  retired,  was  president  and 
treasurer  of  a  foundry  and  machine  shop ;  about  60 
years  of  age.     Mr.  Walburn  read  the  Tribune  and  the 
Post  regularly.     He  was  interested  in  Socialism  in  a 
casual  way  and  had  read  one  of  Walling's  books.    He 
could  not  remember  the  title.    He  was  the  only  mem- 
ber of  the  Jury  who  stated  that  he  had  read  a  book  on 
the  subject  of  Socialism.     Mr  Walburn  was  born  in 
Pennsylvania  and  acted  as  a  draft  board  registrar  dur- 
ing the  war. 

12 


11.  Isaac  Anhalt,  a  diamond  broker  of  about  50 
years  of  age.     He  had  read  nothing  about  Socialism; 
was  interested  in  the  war  and  believed  in  conscription. 
Mr.  Anhalt  was  of  German  birth. 

12.  P.  R.  De  Bracke,  secretary  of  a  chemical  cor- 
poration   and    stockholder   of   the    same   corporation. 
Mr.  De  Bracke  was  born  in  Paris,  and  knew  "very 
little"  about  Socialism.     In  answer  to  the  question, 
"Have  you  any  Socialist  friends?"  he  replied,  "No." 
Mr.  De  Bracke  stated  his  age  as  38. 


13 


The  Government's  Case 

MR.  BARNES:  May  it  please  your  Honor,  Mr. 
Foreman  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  .  .  .  the  real  issue 
that  you  have  to  decide  is  not  whether  these  defend- 
ants are  right  in  their  economic  theories,  or  whether 
they  are  wrong.  It  does  not  make  any  difference. 
The  question  is  whether  what  they  did  was  done  with 
a  purpose  which  the  law  forbids. 

This  indictment  was  filed  in  the  month  of  May, 
1918,  and  brought,  as  are  all  indictments,  by  the  grand 
jury  of  the  United  States  District  Court.  It  is  founded 
upon  one  of  the  great  war  statutes  that  were  enacted 
by  Congress  shortly  after  the  entrance  of  this  country 
into  the  war.  It  is  filed  upon  a  statute  which  is  popu- 
larly known  as  the  Espionage  Act,  and  which  among 
other  things  was  enacted  by  Congress  for  the  purpose 
of  insuring  a  successful  raising  of  an  army,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  any  obstruction,  or  any 
effort  made  to  impair  the  loyalty  or  the  obedience  or 
the  discipline  of  the  army,  or  to  demoralize  it  in  any 
way,  shape  or  form. 

On  April  6,  1917,  you  will  recall,  Congress  declared 
that  a  state  of  war  existed  between  this  country  and 
Germany,  and  thereafter  it  took  certain  steps  to  insure 
not  only  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  that  war,  but  a 
successful  termination. 

The  first  thing  needed  after  a  war  is  declared  is 
money.  The  next  thing  is  men.  The  next  thing,  of 
course,  is  ships  and  equipment. 

As  you  will  recall,  immediately  after  the  war  was 
declared,  provisions  were  made  for  raising  money, 
and  the  first  Liberty  loan  was  authorized,  and  then 

14 


in  the  middle  of  May,  1917,  was  passed  the  act  known 
as  the  Selective  Service  Act,  also  commonly  called 
the  Conscription  Act,  although  the  act  is  more  prop- 
erly designated  as  a  selective  service  act  than  as  a 
conscription  act,  and  that  act  provided  two  ways  for 
raising  an  army,  one  by  the  process  of  selective  ser- 
vice, the  taking  of  those  men  who  could  be  spared, 
between  the  ages  of  21  and  30,  and  the  other  way, 
and  a  way,  however,  which  it  is  very  important  for 
you  to  bear  in  mind  in  this  case,  was  for  the  raising  of 
an  army  by  voluntary  enlistment,  by  taking  men  who 
did  not  wait  for  the  draft,  but  men  who  voluntarily 
came  forward  to  offer  their  services,  and  their  lives,  if 
necessary,  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war. 

That  was  May,  1917,  that  that  law  was  passed,  May 
18,  the  law  authorizing  the  raising  of  the  army.  On 
June  15,  1917,  there  was  passed  the  Espionage  Act, 
the  act  which  we  have  to  consider  in  this  prosecution. 
That  act  is  the  one  upon  which  this  indictment  is 
based. 

The  persons  against  whom  this  indictment  is  found 
are  two,  one  of  them  a  natural  person,  like  you  and  I, 
and  the  other  a  corporation.  So  that  while  we  see  at 
the  defendants'  table  here  only  one  person  in  the  flesh, 
you  must  remember  always  there  is  on  trial  here  be- 
fore you  a  corporeal  body,  an  organization  created  by 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  which  has  been 
indicted,  and  which  has  duly  pleaded,  and  which  is 
duly  represented  by  counsel. 

The  individual  is  Mr.  Scott  Nearing,  a  gentleman 
who  has  been  a  member  of  the  faculty  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  Toledo.  He  has  been 
a  lecturer  and  a  writer  upon  economic  subjects. 

The  corporation  is  The  American  Socialist  Society, 
and  that  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  Socialist  Party, 
which  is  a  political  organization,  although  we  shall 

15 


show  you  that  no  one  may  be  a  member  of  The  Amer- 
ican Socialist  Society,  this  defendant,  unless  he  is  a 
believer  in  the  general  doctrines  of  the  Socialist  Party. 

This  corporation  runs,  among  its  activities,  a  school 
called  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science,  which  oc- 
cupies a  building  on  15th  Street  in  this  City,  which  I 
believe  is  called  the  People's  Home,  and  this  school  is 
devoted,  among  other  things,  to  the  teaching  and  pro- 
pagation of  the  theories  of  the  socialist  movement. 

So  please  remember  now  and  at  all  times  that  there 
is  before  you  on  trial  two  persons — one  the  individual 
and  the  other  the  corporation. 

The  sections  or  provisions  of  the  Espionage  Act 
upon  which  this  indictment  is  based  are  Sections  3  and 
4,  and  the  first  title,  and  the  material  parts  of  those 
sections  which  are  concerned  in  this  prosecution  are 
as  follows: 

"Whoever,  when  the  United  States  is  at  war,  shall 
wilfully  cause  or  attempt  to  cause  insubordination, 
disloyalty,  mutiny  or  refusal  of  duty  in  the  military 
or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  or  shall  wilfully 
obstruct  the  recruiting  or  enlistment  service  of  the 
United  States,  to  the  injury  of  the  service,  or  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  $10,000  or  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  twenty 
years,  or  both." 

And  this  Section  4  provides  that  if  two  or  more 
persons  conspire  to  violate  the  provisions  of  Sections 
2  and  3  of  this  title,  and  what  I  just  read  to  you  was 
in  Section  3,  and  one  or  more  of  such  persons  does 
any  act  to  effect  the  object  of  the  conspiracy,  each  of 
the  parties  to  such  conspiracy  shall  be  punished  as  in 
said  sections  provided. 

In  other  words,  there  are  two  offenses  made  by  the 
statute,  or  three,  practically,  that  we  are  here  r-nn- 
cerned  with. 

16 


One  is  the  attempt  to  cause  disloyalty,  insubordina- 
tion, mutiny  or  refusal  of  duty  in  the  military  or  the 
naval  forces  of  the  country. 

The  second  is  obstructing  the  recruiting  or  enlist- 
ment service  of  the  United  States,  and  the  third  is 
conspiring  to  effect  those  objects. 

You  will  notice  that  the  penalty  is  one  of  very  wide 
scope.  It  is  a  punishment  and  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
$10,000.  In  other  words,  the  fine  may  be  imposed 
from  one  dollar  up  to  the  limit  of  $10,000,  or  imprison- 
ment for  not  more  than  twenty  years.  In  other  words, 
if  a  verdict  of  guilty  should  be  found,  the  court  would 
have  the  discretion  to  impose  a  sentence  of  from  one 
day  in  the  custody  of  the  Marshal  up  to  as  high  as 
twenty  years. 

This  charge  in  this  case  concerns  itself  with  the 
publication,  the  writing,  and  the  distribution  of  a 
pamphlet  consisting  of  some  44  pages  called  "The 
Great  Madness.  A  Victory  for  the  American  Plu- 
tocracy." 

It  is  claimed  by  the  Government,  and  I  think  will 
be  conceded,  that  Mr.  Scott  Nearing  is  the  author  of 
the  pamphlet,  and  that  it  was  published  by  and  dis- 
tributed by  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science,  which, 
as  I  have  pointed  out,  was  an  activity  of  the  defendant, 
The  American  Socialist  Society. 

The  Government  claims  that  when  Mr.  Nearing  and 
The  Rand  School  collaborated  in  the  writing  and  the 
publication  and  the  distribution  of  this  pamphlet,  that 
they  were  acting  together  in  a  concerted  plan  to  effect 
a  particular  purpose.  That  is,  they  were  both  acting 
together  in  concert,  the  one  to  write,  the  other  to 
publish  and  distribute. 

The  Government  claims  that  this  pamphlet  was  an 
obstruction  to  the  recruiting  and  enlistment  service  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  it  was  published  and  dis- 

17 


tributed,  with  the  intention,  in  the  minds  of  Mr.  Near- 
ing  and  of  the  Society,  if  the  Society  may  have  a  mind 
— but  it  was  done  with  the  intention  of  obstructing 
the  recruiting  and  enlistment  service  of  the  United 
States,  and  with  the  intention  of  creating  among  our 
soldiers  a  spirit  of  disloyalty  and  insubordination 
sufficient  to  amount  to  an  attempt,  practically,  to  cause 
disloyalty  and  insubordination  and  refusal  of  duty 
among  our  soldiers. 

Now,  by  obstruction,  as  I  understand  the  law,  we 
do  not  mean  necessarily  the  successful  obstruction — 
we  do  not  mean  necessarily  that  any  one  man  read  this 
book  and  decided  that  he  would  not  obey  the  draft, 
or  that  he  would  not  enlist.  It  is  not  necessary,  it  is 
not  practicable  for  the  Government  to  go  out  and  find 
men  who  would  come  here  on  the  stand  and  say,  "Yes, 
I  read  this  particular  book,  and  it  persuaded  me  not  to 
enlist,"  or  "It  persuaded  me  to  attempt  to  evade  the 
draft,"  or  "It  persuaded  me  not  to  register  for  the 
draft." 

And  by  recruiting  and  enlistment  service,  we  do  not 
mean  exclusively  the  draft,  but  we  mean  all  those 
agencies  of  the  Government  which  are  used  and  em- 
ployed in  getting  men  to  go  into  the  army. 

The  Government  will  claim  that  the  recruiting  and 
enlistment  service  embraces  the  appeal  to  the  heart 
that  every  citizen  has,  the  feeling  that  every  citizen 
has,  to  fly  to  the  defense  of  his  country,  and  to  enter 
its  service,  and  to  give  his  all  for  the  successful  prose- 
cution of  a  war,  when  it  once  has  declared  that  war. 

In  other  words,  the  recruiting  and  enlistment  ser- 
vice is  everything,  practically,  that  we  have,  both  the 
organized  and  instinctive  natural  appeal  to  men  who 
are  citizens  of  a  country  to  rally  to  its  defense,  to  rally 
to  its  colors,  and  to  take  their  part  in  accomplishing 
the  objects  for  which  it  enters  a  war. 

18 


It  will  be  claimed  by  the  government  that  this 
pamphlet  is  an  obstruction  of  those  appeals,  and  that 
it  was  designed  and  intended  to  dull  the  enthusiasm, 
and  that  it  was  designed  and  purposed  and  intended 
to  persuade  its  readers  that  this  was  not  a  war  for 
which  they  should  be  prepared  to  offer  their  services 
to  the  government.  That  it  was  a  war  which  did  not 
concern  them,  a  war  in  which  their  own  true  interests 
would  be  best  consulted  by  keeping  out  of,  themselves. 

It  is  that  sort  of  an  obstruction,  to  the  recruiting 
and  enlistment  service  that  the  Government  will  con- 
tend was  caused  by  the  particular  pamphlet. 

It  will  also  be  claimed  and  we  will  attempt  to  show 
that  from  the  statements  and  the  arguments  in  this 
pamphlet,  distributed  as  it  was  at  a  time  when  the 
draft  was  in  course  of  operation ;  at  a  time  when  you 
would  meet  your  neighbor  on  the  street  in  civilian 
clothes,  and  he  would  tell  you  he  had  registered,  and 
he  expected  to  be  called  shortly — it  was  distributed  at 
that  time,  that  it  was  intended  to  cause  those  people 
when  they  became  soldiers  to  be  disloyal  and  insub- 
ordinate, and  that  the  statements  therein  contained 
are  calculated — that  statements  of  that  character  are 
calculated  to  make  soldiers  who  would  not  be  the  loyal 
and  brave  men  that  we  wanted  and  that  Congress 
wanted  in  the  army. 

It  is  not  contended  by  the  Government  that  there 
was  any  formal  meeting  between  Mr.  Nearing  and  the 
directors  of  the  American  Socialist  Society,  at  which 
a  resolution  was  passed  that  they  would  formally  con- 
spire together  to  obstruct  the  raising  of  the  army  and 
so  forth.  It  is  claimed,  though,  that  they  were  work- 
ing together  with  a  common  object,  using  a  common 
means  to  accomplish  this  end,  which  Congress  has 
made  a  crime. 

Now,  we  will  show  that  the  pamphlet  was  written 

19 


by  Mr.  Nearing  in  the  summer  of  1917,  after  war  had 
been  declared,  and  after  the  Selective  Service  Act  was 
passed,  and  after  the  Espionage  Act  was  passed. 

We  will  prove  that  there  were  two  editions  pub- 
lished, each  edition  consisting  of  ten  thousand  copies, 
and  that  it  was  distributed  all  over  the  United  States 
by  the  Rand  School  of  Social  Science,  through  its  book 
store  called  the  Rand  Book  Store,  which  it  maintained. 

The  hardest  point  always  in  any  case  of  this  kind  is 
proving  the  intent,  proving  what  is  in  the  mind  of  a 
man  when  he  does  a  particular  act.  That,  of  course, 
as  you  can  see,  is  something  that  is  not  capable  of 
photographic  proof.  We  have  no  means  yet  of  taking 
a  photograph  of  a  man's  mind  to  determine  just  what 
he  intended  when  he  did  a  thing,  so  we  have  to  resort 
to  certain  rules,  and  certain  lines  of  evidence  which 
will  be  resorted  to  in  this  case. 

First,  the  ordinary  rule  that  a  man  is  presumed  to 
intend  natural  ordinary  and  reasonable  consequences 
of  what  he  says  and  does. 

Then  we  may  look  at  and  we  will  look  at  other 
statements,  other  publications  made  by  these  defend- 
ants at  or  about  the  time  that  this  pamphlet  was  being 
published  and  distributed,  because  that  may  give  us  a 
line  on  what  they  had  in  mind  at  the  time  they  were 
doing  this — their  other  activities. 

Then  we  shall  endeavor  to  show  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Nearing  and  the  defendant,  The  American  Socialist 
Society,  at  this  time  were  acting  under  the  inspiration 
of  a  declaration  of  a  war  policy  adopted  at  a  convention 
of  the  Socialist  Party  held  in  St.  Louis  in  April,  1917, 
and  ratified  thereafter  by  a  referendum  of  the  party. 

We  have  asked  and  you  have  heard  a  great  many 
questions  of  you  gentlemen  with  regard  to  socialism 
and  socialists.  Now,  of  course,  you  understand  no- 
body is  being-  prosecuted  because  he  is  a  Socialist. 

20 


That  would  be  abhorent  to  our  Constitution,  and  to 
our  conception  of  justice,  to  yours  and  to  mine  or  to 
anyone's,  but  we  are  interested  in  the  belief  and  doc- 
trine of  these  people  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Socialist 
principles,  if  it  throws  any  light  upon  what  they  in- 
tended at  the  time  they  printed  and  distributed  this 
pamphlet,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  we  shall  look 
at  what  was  the  well  defined  or  the  defined  and  ac- 
cepted war  policy  of  the  Socialist  Party,  by  reason  of 
the  fact  that  these  people  are  Socialists,  and  that  they 
did  accept  it. 

We  will  show  you  that  Mr.  Nearing  became  an  en- 
rolled Socialist  in  the  month  of  July,  1917,  whereas 
this  war  platform  was  adopted,  the  majority  report — 
in  April,  1917,  and  that  Mr.  Nearing  then  became  a 
Socialist,  and  we  shall  show  you  that  the  two  of  the 
committee  that  adopted  this  particular  war  platform, 
were  directors  of  The  American  Socialist  Society. 

So  that  we  will  then  feel  that  we  are  entitled  to  look 
at  this  war  platform  to  see  what  it  pledges  the  Socialist 
Party  to  do  in  connection  with  the  war,  as  throwing 
light  upon  what  Mr.  Nearing  and  the  American  Social- 
ist Society  had  in  mind  when  they  did  make  this  pub- 
lication. 

Now,  Mr.  Stedmanj  of  course,  has  very  properly  said 
to  you  that  because  a  man  is  opposed  to  a  tariff,  you 
do  not  necessarily  believe  that  a  man  is  a  smuggler, 
and  because  a  man  is  opposed  to  national  prohibition, 
you  do  not  brand  him  as  running  a  blind  pig. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  Now,  you  see,  Judge,  they  do 
know  that  term  here.  Even  the  District  Attorney 
knows  it. 

THE  COURT:     He  learned  it  from  you. 

MR.  BARNES :  I  thought  when  you  first  used  the 
term  "blind  pig",  that  that  was  a  term  of  opprobrium 
for  capitalists. 

21 


MR.  STEDMAN :  We  have  better  ones  than  that 
for  capitalists. 

MR.  BARNES :  But,  gentlemen,  if  you  find  a  man 
who  says  he  is  opposed  to  any  protective  tariff,  and- 
will  never  pay  a  penny  of  duty,  and  then  you  catch 
him  walking  through  the  Customs  House  with  his 
pockets  full  of  diamonds,  you  are  entitled  then  to  look 
back  at  his  activities  to  give  you  light  as  to  whether 
or  not  he  intended  to  smuggle,  or  whether  he  denied 
he  had  diamonds  in  his  pocket,  and  so  with  the  blind 
pig,  if  you  have  a  man  who  says  that  national  prohibi- 
tion is  an  outrage  upon  the  rights  of  individuals,  and 
the  rights  of  free  men,  and  that  he  won't  stand  for  it, 
and  he  will  oppose  it,  and  then  you  thereafter  see  him 
placing  a  twenty-cent  piece  right  over  a  place  where 
there  is  a  separate  section  or  a  compartment,  you  have 
a  right  then  to  think,  or  to  take  into  consideration  his 
declaration  with  regard  to  prohibition,  so  as  to  deter- 
mine the  question  whether  he  is  trying  to  get  a  drink, 
or  whether  he  is  merely  trying  to  buy*  some  cigars. 

Gentlemen,  something  has  been  said  about  a  fair 
trial.  We  want  a  fair  trial  here.  Mr.  Stedman  has 
told  you  very  truly  that  we  are  all  a  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment ;  I  am  a  part  of  the  Government,  and  he  is  a 
part  of  the  Government,  and  it  is  tremendously  im- 
portant to  us  all  that  we  give  fair  trials  to  everybody. 
He  has  told  you  the  District  Attorney  does  not  want 
innocent  people  convicted,  and  he  is  right,  we  do  not, 
and  we  are  going  to  try  to  present  the  case  just  as 
fairly  as  it  is  possible  to  present  it,  and  to  appeal  to 
your  reason,  and  to  appeal  to  your  understanding,  but, 
gentlemen,  when  they  ask  for  a  fair  trial  for  the  de- 
fendants, do  not  forget  also  that  we  are  entitled  to  a 
fair  trial  for  the  government. 

We  are  entitled  to  your  best  judgment,  and  that  is 
all  we  want.  That  is  all  we  ask  for,  and  we  are  en- 

22 


titled  to  that.  We  are  entitled  to  a  judgment  in  which 
sympathy  shall  not  play  any  part,  and  we  are  entitled 
to  a  judgment  in  which  the  feeling,  "Oh,  well,  the  war 
is  over,"  shall  not  play  any  part,  and  both  sides,  both 
the  Government  and  the  defendants,  are  entitled  to 
your  attention,  and  I  am  sure  they  will  get  it,  every 
moment  of  the  trial,  and  I  know  that  we  will  have  your 
very  best  efforts  to  give  us  a  just  verdict. 


23 


Scott  Nearing's  Direct 
Testimony 

Q.  What  is  your  name? 

A.  Scott  Nearing. 

Q.  How  old  are  you? 

A.  35. 

Q.  Where  were  you  born? 

A.  Morris  Run,  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  Your  parents  born  in  that  state  or  were  they 
born  elsewhere? 

A.  My  father  was  born  in  New  York  and  my 
mother  in  New  Jersey. 

Q.  Are  you  a  man  of  German  extraction? 

A.  My  mother's  family  were  Polish,  her  name  was 
Zabrisky;  formerly  it  was  Zabrouski,  and  my  father's 
name  was  Dutch,  the  family  name  was  Van  Neering. 

Q.  How  long  have  they  been  in  this  country? 

A.  Both  families  have  been  here  for  200  years. 

Q.  You  are  a  married  man? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  any  children? 

A.  Two  children. 

Q.  Their  ages? 

A.  4  and  6. 

Q.  Where  did  you  attend  school  first? 

A.  I  first  attended  school  at  Morris  Run. 

Q.  Before  I  go  into  that,  what  business  was  your 
father  in? 

A.  He  is  a  broker. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  New  York. 

24 


Q.     What  kind? 

A.     Stock  broker. 

Q.     Now,  have  you  any  brothers? 

A.     Two. 

Q.     With  reference  to  the  army,  will  you  state? 

A.  I  have  one  brother  in  France  in  Bordeaux  at 
the  present  time  and  another  brother  who  was  in  the 
army  but  has  been  dismissed  or  discharged. 

Q.     Volunteers? 

A.     One  volunteered  and  one  was  conscripted. 

Q.  You  and  your  family  are  on  good  terms  not- 
withstanding your  views  on  economics? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Will  you  state  your  general  course  of  study  and 
work  please? 

A.  I  have  attended  school  at  Morris  Run,  Pennsyl- 
vania, at  Philadelphia,  in  the  elementary  grades,  in 
High  School;  I  attended  the  Temple  University,  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  academic  course,  and  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  graduate  school. 

Q.  That  finished  your  career  as  a  student  in  the 
schools  or  being  a  pupil  in  the  schools? 

A.     Yes. 

O.  What  line  of  work  or  endeavor  did  you  take  up 
then? 

A.  I  was  secretary  of  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor 
Committee  from  1905  to  1907. 

Q.     How  was  that  committee  constituted? 

A.  It  was  a  volunteer  society  of  mostly  political 
people,  liberals,  I  suppose,  who  were  interested  in  the 
child  labor  problem  in  Pennsylvania.  At  that  time 
Pennsylvania  was  the  second  largest  manufacturing 
state  in  the  country  and  we  had  more  working  children 
in  Pennsylvania  than  in  any  other  state  in  the  United 
States :  in  the  mines  and  in  the  silk  mills  and  in  the 
textile  factories  and  the  glass  houses,  particularly. 

25 


At  that  time  the  age  of  child  labor  in  Pennsylvania 
was  13  and  there  was  a  very  vigorous  campaign  to 
arouse  public  sentiment  to  raise  the  age  to  14  for  day 
work  and  16  for  night  work.  I  was  secretary  of  that 
volunteer  committee  that  was  busy  with  that  campaign. 

Q.     How  long  did  you  serve  in  that  capacity? 

A.     Two  years. 

Q.     Following  that,  what? 

A.  Following  that  I  became  a  teacher  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania. 

Q.     What  did  you  teach  there? 

A.     I  taught  economics  and  sociology. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  continue  in  the  university  as 
a  teacher? 

A.  Nine  years.  During  that  same  time  I  taught 
three  classes  a  week  at  Swarthmore  College  from  about 
1908  until  about  1912. 

Q.     Did  you  write  any  books  at  that  time? 

A.     A  number,  yes. 

Q.     Can  you  give  us  the  names  of  some  of  them? 

A.  The  first  one  was  a  book  on  economics  which 
was  called  "Elements  of  Economics" ;  and  I  wrote  that 
in  collaboration  between  myself  and  one  of  my  fellow 
instructors,  F.  D.  Watson,  who  is  now  professor  of 
sociology  and  economics  at  Haverford. 

The  second  book  was  my  doctor's  thesis,  called 
"Social  Adjustment." 

The  third  one  was  based  on  my  experiences  with  the 
Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee. 

Q.  Coming  to  the  first  one,  did  that  have  a  general 
circulation? 

A.  No,  it  was  a  text  book,  and  used  in  colleges  and 
used  to  some  extent  in  more  advanced  high  school 
classes. 

Q.     In  what  state? 

A.     Well,  I  cannot  tell  you  as  to  what  state.    It  was 

26 


published  by  The  Macmillan  Company  and  circulated 
throughout  the  country  and  in  England  because  the 
Macmillan  Company  is  an  English  firm,  and  the  Amer- 
ican offices  are  the  branch  offices. 

Q.  Did  you  write  any  other  books  while  you  were 
there  ? 

A.  I  mentioned  "Social  Adjustment."  That  was 
my  doctor's  thesis.  That  was  also  published  by  the 
Macmillan  Company. 

Then  I  wrote  a  book  called  "Solution  of  Child  Labor 
Problems"  that  was  based  on  my  experiences  with  the 
Child  Labor  Committee. 

And  then  the  next  one  I  wrote  was  a  book  called 
"Social  Religion."  That  was  an  attempt  to  apply  the 
principles  which  are  laid  down  in  "Social  Adjust- 
ments" to  the  ethical  or  religious  field. 

Then  I  wrote  another  book  called  "Social  Sanity." 
Which  was  an  attempt  to  show  that  changes  are 
bound  to  occur  and  that  if  we  are  wise  and  foresighted, 
and  if  we  understand  what  is  coming  they  can  occur 
sanely  and  intelligently  and  constructively;  but  that 
if  we  are  stupid  and  bigoted  and  refuse  to  see  what  is 
coming,  the  changes  may  overtake  and  wreck  our 
civilization. 

I  tried  to  point  out  that  the  ruling  class  in  society, 
the  people  in  charge  and  in  control  of  any  society 
would  do  well  to  realize  that  progress  is  bound  to  be 
made  and  would  do  well  to  study  the  problems  of 
progress  and  see  that  they  were  sane  rather  than  the 
chaotic  progress.  Changes  will  come  anyway  and  the 
question  is  whether  they  will  come  wisely  or  insanely. 

Then  this  little  book  published  by  B.  W. 
Huebsch,  called  "The  Super  Race."  That  is  a  study 
in  the  improvement  of  race  standards,  or  improvement 
of  our  racial  stock.  It  is  an  attempt  to  show  that  peo- 
ple can  be  better  born  if  they  exercise  the  wiser  pro- 

27 


visions,  that  we  can  become  a  better  racial  stock  to 
begin  with. 

Then  the  fourth  book  is  one  called  "The  New  Edu- 
cation"; and  that  was  a  book  written  and  describing 
some  of  the  most  promising  educational  experiments 
that  were  being  carried  on  in  the  United  States  at  that 
time. 

I  traveled  all  over  the  country  and  studied  all  of  the 
most  progressive  school  systems  and  I  wrote  out  a 
series  of  chapters  or  articles — they  were  both — con- 
cerning the  new  work  that  was  being  done  in  educa- 
tion. 

Then  there  was  another  series  of  five  books,  the 
first  one:  "Wages  in  the  United  States."  That  was 
an  attempt  to  show  what  wages  were  being  paid  in 
the  United  States  and  it  was  the  first  attempt,  so  far 
as  I  know  in  the  country,  to  study  wages. 

That  was  published  in  1914.  It  was  the  first  at- 
tempt by  any  other  than  governmental  authority 
to  study  wages ;  and  the  most  astonishing  thing  about 
the  book,  about  the  study,  was  the  smallness  of  the 
wages  that  were  paid.  The  great  majority  of  the 
working  people  at  that  time  got  less  than  a  decent 
wage,  nine-tenths  of  the  men  got  less  than  $1,000  and 
nine-tenths  of  the  women  got  less  than  $600  a  year. 
And  that  held  true  both  of  the  railroads,  industries  and 
factories,  all  up  through  the  line  of  industry  at  that 
time. 

That  was  the  first  of  a  series  of  five  books  dealing 
with  the  question  as  to  the  income  of  the  country  as 
it  was  at  that  time. 

The  second  was  a  book  called  "Financing  the  Wage 
Earner's  Family" ;  and  that  was  a  study  of  our  stand- 
ards of  living.  The  study  of  wages  was  an  attempt 
to  show  how  much  the  people  got,  and  this  study  was 
an  attempt  to  show  how  much  they  needed  in  order  to 

28 


maintain  physical  health  and  social  decency. 

The  conclusion  from  this  study  was  that  the  ma- 
jority of  workers,  both  men  and  women,  at  that  time, 
1915,  were  getting  less  than  a  decent  wage;  that  is 
less  than  a  wage  which  would  enable  them  to  maintain 
physical  health  and  social  decency. 

The  third  book  in  that  series  was  a  book  called : 
"Reducing  the  Cost  of  Living."  That  was  an  attempt 
to  show  that  even  where  men  were  getting  compara- 
tively good  wages,  their  income  was  being  cut  down 
by  the  increased  higher  prices. 

This  book  was  an  attempt  to  indicate  some  of  the 
possible  remedies  for  the  high  cost  of  living. 

The  fourth  book  in  that  series  was  a  book  called : 
"Income."  That  was  a  study  of  the  whole  question  of 
income  and  as  to  how  it  was  divided  up  between  wage 
earners  and  property  owners.  I  tried  to  make  one  of 
the  points  in  that  book  which  is  one  of  the  well  known 
points  in  the  socialist  doctrine,  that  there  were  only 
two  sources  of  income,  or  from  which  income  can  be 
derived : 

A  man  is  paid  because  he  works,  as  a  man  who  works 
on  a  railroad ;  and  a  man  is  paid  because  he  owns,  as  a 
man  who  owns  stocks  and  bonds  in  a  railroad,  and  who 
did  nothing  actively  himself  to  give  him  that  income. 
And  I  tried  to  work  out,  using  the  word  "income,"  to 
see  how  it  was  divided  between  the  two  classes. 

Q.  Do  you  use  it  in  illustration  of  a  man  who 
worked  on  a  railroad.  Do  you  confine  that  to  manual 
work  ? 

A.  Anybody  that  performs  a  social  service,  that 
includes  the  president  and  everybody  else  on  a  railroad. 

Q.  In  other  words,  your  definition  of  work  includes 
the  service  rendered  by  the  president,  the  manager 
and  by  all  who  perform  a  service  in  the  operation  of 
the  enterprise,  whether  managerial  or  otherwise? 

29 


A.  Yes,  who  perform  any  useful  service,  social  ser- 
vice ;  that  includes  also  the  man  who  plays  the  violin 
and  writes  good  poetry. 

O.     (By  Mr.  Barnes)  :  Does  that  include  the  lawyer? 

MR.  STEDMAN:    I  hope  not. 

A.  And  the  fifth  book  in  that  series  was  a  book 
called  "Anthracite,"  which  was  a  study  of  the  anthra- 
cite coal  industry,  in  which  I  attempted  to  show  by  one 
industry  what  I  have  been  trying  to  show  was  common 
to  all  others.  I  took  up  the  matter  of  wages  of  a  man 
located  in  that  region  and  in  that  industry,  what  is  the 
income  from  the  anthracite  coal  industry  and  tried  to 
arrive  at  a  conclusion  as  to  the  contention  between  the 
miners  and  the  operators  and  the  general  public,  and 
the  conclusion  was  that  the  operators,  the  owners  of 
the  mines,  ten  operating  railroad  companies  which 
owned  over  96  per  cent  of  the  mines  and  wherever 
there  was  an  increase  in  wages  which  had  been  grant- 
ed, it  had  been  more  than  offset  by  the  increase  in  the 
cost  of  living;  and  the  increase  in  wages  was  shoved 
over  by  the  operators  in  the  form  of  increased  prices 
to  the  consumers;  and  while  the  operator  made  more 
in  dividends  and  the  labor  got  some  more  in  money 
wages,  the  consumer  always  footed  the  bill. 

And  the  last  book  was  a  book  called  "Poverty  and 
Riches,"  which  was  a  book  in  which  I  attempted  to 
describe  the  results  of  our  industrial  system ;  the  re- 
sults on  a  man  who  worked  and  the  results  on  the 
owner,  the  results  in  the  form  of  poverty,  the  results 
in  the  form  of  riches;  and  then  I  have  a  chapter  on 
industrial  democracy. 

That  includes  about  all  of  them  except  a  number  of 
pamphlets,  about  a  half  a  dozen  pamphlets. 

Q.     Will  you  name  those? 

A.  "Work  and  Pay,"  "The  Coal  Question,"  "The 
Menace  of  Militarism,"  "The  Germs  of  War,"  "The 

30 


Great  Madness."    I  think  that  is  all. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  serve  in  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania? 

A.     Nine  years. 

O.     When  did  you  discontinue? 

A.     1915,  June  1915. 

Q.  In  just  a  short  way,  what  were  the  circum- 
stances of  the  termination  of  your  services? 

A.     Why 

MR.  BARNES :  I  do  not  think  that  we  want  to  go 
into  Mr.  Nearing's  trouble  with  the  university  at  that 
time. 

THE  COURT :    I  don't  think  so  either. 

MR.  BARNES:  We  will  concede  he  left  the  uni- 
versity. 

THE  COURT:  He  can  say  there  was  a  difference 
of  opinion  between  him  and  the  trustees. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  I  want  to  bring  it  out  so  they 
would  not  think  he  rifled  the  treasury  or  anything  of 
that  sort. 

Q.     Where  did  you  go  from  there? 

A.     University  of  Toledo. 

Q.     How  long  were  you  there? 

A.     Two  years. 

Q.     Did  you  resign  from  the  Toledo  University? 

A.  I  resigned,  and  my  resignation  was  rejected,  and 
then  the  trustees  "fired"  me. 

THE  COURT:    Is  that  an  academic  university? 

THE  WITNESS :  The  University  of  Toledo  is  a 
municipal  university.  The  University  of  Pennsylvania 
was  a  state — well,  a  semi-state  university.  The  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  had  an  appropriation  of  about 
a  million  dollars  a  year  from  the  state  legislature,  and 
the  University  of  Toledo  was  a  different  university,  it 
was  maintained  entirely  by  what  you  people  here  refer 
to  as  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  and  y^ere  it  was  called 

31 


the  City  Council. 

The  University  of  Pennsylvania  had  a  board  of  23 
trustees,  who  were  self-perpetuating,  that  is  they 
elected  their  own  successors. 

Q.  That  is  the  Board  as  to  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania ? 

A.  Yes,  and  as  to  the  University  of  Toledo,  the 
members  were  appointed  by  the  mayor  and  confirmed 
by  the  city  council,  so  that  the  University  of  Toledo 
was  a  much  more  democratic  institution  than  the  in- 
stitution of  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  Had  you,  prior  to  disassociating  yourself  or 
having  yourself  disassociated  from  the  Toledo  Uni- 
versity, given  any  addresses  in  reference  to  the  war? 

A.     Quite  a  number. 

Q.  Will  you  state  in  just  a  terse  way  what  was 
the  theory  of  your  addresses  on  the  subject  of  war? 

A.  The  theory  of  my  addresses  on  the  subject  was 
the  same  as  the  theory  that  I  had  been  working  out 
for  a  number  of  years. 

When  I  went  into  the  University  I  didn't  have  any 
particular  economic  point  of  view.  After  two  years 
with  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee  I  be- 
came convinced  of  certain  facts,  and  the  foremost  of 
those  was  that  under  the  present  system  the  rule  of 
procedure  is:  "Let  him  take  who  has  the  power  and 
let  him  take  who  can,"  and  "every  man  for  himself, 
and  the  devil  take  the  last  fellow." 

Because  in  Pennsylvania,  without  any  sense  of 
apology,  the  manufacturers,  the  miners,  put  youngsters 
into  their  factories  and  mines  who  had  no  business  to 
work  and  ought  to  be  in  school,  little  boys  and  little 
girls,  and  then  proceeded  to  make  profits  out  of  them ; 
and  when  we  went  to  the  legislature  to  try  to  get  laws 
keeping  children  under  14  out  of  mines  and  factories — 

MR.  BARNES;    I  don't  like  to  interrupt  on  this 

32 


line,  but  we  are  not  interested  in  the  child  labor  ques- 
tion here,  and  I  have  no  objection  to  the  witness  stat- 
ing his  views ;  but  I  don't  think  he  should  detail  all  the 
work  that  he  did  and  the  fight  that  was  had  in  Penn- 
sylvania, all  of  it. 

THE  COURT :     I  quite  agree  with  you. 

MR.  BARNES  :  All  of  us  sympathize  with  the  child 
labor  movement. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  All  sympathize  but  we  don't  do 
much ;  that  is  the  difference. 

Q.  Will  you  cut  it  right  over  to  your  addresses  on 
the  war  issue  and  take  it  from  there  if  you  can? 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  the  Fall  of  1916  I  delivered  a 
series  of  speeches  on  preparedness.  At  that  time  the 
President  had  made  a  swing  around  the  country  and 
he  said  that  if  those  who  disagreed  with  him  had  any 
public  sentiment  on  the  other  side,  they  should  hire  a 
big  hall  and  go  out  and  get  crowds.  So  we  hired  some 
big  halls  and  we  went  out  and  got  big  crowds  in  all 
the  cities,  or  most  of  the  cities  where  he  had  spoken. 

And  during  the  series  of  addresses  I  made  a  talk  on 
the  germs  of  war,  and  I  afterward  published  that 
speech  in  a  pamphlet  of  the  same  title  that  was  pub- 
lished by  a  concern  in  St.  Louis,  I  think  in  the  late  Fall 
of  1916.  Do  you  want  me  to  tell  what  the  theory 
behind  that  is? 

Q.  Yes,  you  have  now  characterized  your  addresses, 
and  I  want  the  theory  that  ran  through  them. 

A.  Well,  the  theory  behind  it,  behind  the  "Germs 
of  War"  was  this: 

That  if  a  town  was  threatened  by  typhoid  fever  the 
first  thing  you  would  want  to  know  was  what  the 
origin  of  the  germs  was,  and  having  discovered  the 
origin  or  source  of  the  difficulty,  you  would  proceed  to 
correct  it  from  the  bottom  up. 

The  war  is  a  social  disease,  the  most  deadly  of  all 

33 


our  social  diseases  and  if  you  want  to  know  how  to 
stop  war  you  have  got  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  the 
thing  and  reach  down  to  the  germs  or  origin  of  war. 

And  then  I  took  up  the  question  of  the  origins  of 
war  as  it  is  taken  up  by  Hobson  in  his  "Imperialism" 
and  by  F.  C.  Howe  in  his  "Why  War,"  or  by  H.  N. 
Brailsford  in  his  "War  of  Steel  and  Gold." 

I  took  up  this  theory,  that  in  the  modern  economic 
world  there  have  been  three  important  stages: 

In  the  first  place  there  was  the  stage  when  nations 
reached  out  for  colonies  as  Spain,  Portugal,  France 
and  the  like ; 

And  then  there  was  the  stage  when  the  nations 
reached  out  for  markets,  and  that  has  been  the  stage 
of  what  we  call  capitalistic  society. 

In  the  last  100  years  or  150  years  the  great  nations 
have  been  looking  for  markets,  and  they  have  had  to 
look  for  markets  because  the  workers,  who  produce 
the  wealth,  get  less  in  wages  than  they  produce  in 
value,  that  is,  if  a  worker  produces  five  pairs  of  shoes, 
he  gets  two  pairs  or  three  pairs  in  wages.  That  is 
what  we  call  a  subsistence  or  a  necessary  wage,  and 
then  over  and  above  that  there  will  be  a  margin,  and 
that  margin  goes  to  the  capitalist  in  rent,  interest, 
dividends  and  profits. 

Now  the  capitalist  can  use  only  a  certain  amount  of 
that  margin ;  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time 
there  are  about  35,000  individuals  who  receive  over 
$50,000  a  year. 

If  a  man  spends  $10,000  a  year  under  modern  condi- 
tions he  can  live  comfortably,  he  can  have  the  comforts 
and  simple  luxuries  of  life. 

Now  if  a  man  lives  comfortable  under  those  circum- 
stances, he  would  have  $40,000  left  over. 

Now  take  the  sixty-seven  richest  people  in  America 
having  a  total  income  of  $300,000,000  and  $298,600,000 

34 


of  that  is  in  the  form  of  rent,  interest,  dividends  and 
profits,  and  $1,400,000  is  in  the  form  of  salaries  and 
commissions.  That  is,  there  are  salaries  and  commis- 
sions averaging  $20,000  a  year  apiece. 

And  over  and  above  that,  about  99  per  cent  of  their 
income  is  in  interest,  rent,  dividends  and  profits. 

Now  that  is  the  surplus  over  and  above  of  what  goes 
back  to  the  worker  in  the  form  of  wages. 

Now,  I  say  if  a  man  spends  $10,000  or  $15,000  on  his 
living  that  is  all  that  he  can  spend  and  he  must  spend 
the  difference  or  at  least  put  the  difference  in  service 
in  some  other  way.  There  are  two  ways  that  he  can 
utilize  it: 

He  can  invest  it  at  home  or  he  can  invest  it  abroad. 
So  long  as  there  are  investment  opportunities  at  home, 
the  capitalist,  or  the  man  who  gets  the  surplus,  invests 
that,  we  will  say  at  home.  When  the  time  comes  that 
he  can  no  longer  invest  it  at  home  he  has  got  to  send 
it  abroad  and  that  is  what  we  mean  by  a  search  for 
foreign  markets.  In  China  and  South  America  and 
portions  of  Africa  there  are  unexploited  resources : 
gold  mines  and  iron  mines  and  the  like  and  franchises, 
trolley  franchises  and  electric  franchises,  etc.,  and  the 
capitalist  in  America  or  any  other  capitalistic  country 
takes  the  surplus  that  has  come  to  him  and  invests 
that  surplus  in  South  America  or  China  or  Africa  or 
somewhere  else. 

Ever  since  about  the  time  of  the  Franco-Prussian 
war  we  have  been  engaged  in  sending  abroad  the  eco- 
nomic surplus.  That  has  been  true  of  England,  Bel- 
gium, France  and  Germany,  and  to  a  small  extent  Italy 
and  since  1900  that  has  been  true  of  the  United  States. 

Now,  you  take  the  investment  field  like  that  in  Mex- 
ico, for  example,  around  Tampico  there  are  extensive 
oil  properties  and  of  course  there  are  large  interests 
in  Mexico. 

35 


On  the  one  hand  there  is  the  Standard  Oil  Interests 
and  on  the  other  hand  the  interests  of  S.  Pierson  & 
Company,  the  English  oil  trust,  if  you  could  call  it  so ; 
and  these  two  interests  both  buy  in  Mexico  oil  lands 
and  sometimes  they  come  into  conflict,  the  English 
Pound  and  the  American  Dollar  both  looking  for  the 
same  oil  well. 

In  1850,  I  think,  Lord  Palmerston,  a  British  states- 
man, enunciated  the  doctrine  that  the  flag  follows  the 
investor.  The  British  Pound  goes  into  Mexico  and  the 
American  Dollar  goes  into  Mexico,  and  the  British 
flag  follows  the  British  Pound  into  Mexico  and  the 
United  States  flag  follows  the  American  investor  into 
Mexico,  and  when  the  investor  comes  into  conflict, 
why  the  flags  come  into  conflict. 

And  our  theory,  my  theory,  the  socialist  theory  of 
modern  wars  is  that  whenever  you  get  these  com- 
mercial rivalries  developed  and  established,  the  result 
is  bound  to  be  war. 

We  have  just  seen  an  interesting  illustration  of  that, 
probably  all  of  us  have  been  following  the  end  of  the 
war  with  great  interest.  The  British  called  us  in  to 
help  them  win  the  war  and  we  went  in  and  helped  them 
win  the  war  and  no  sooner  is  the  war  over  than  they 
declare  an  embargo  on  40  different  American  articles, 
and  then  in  the  United  States  Senate  the  day  after,  I 
think  it  was  Senator  Lewis  rose  up  in  his  place  and 
said  "Let  the  British  statesmen  beware  lest  they  re- 
awaken the  spirit  of  1812." 

And  another  senator,  I  think  Senator  Nelson,  spoke 
up  and  said  something  about  "bloody  reprisal." 

Now,  we  are  supposed  to  be  on  good  terms  with 
Britain  and  Britain  says  "you  cannot  import  articles 
into  Britain."  And  the  American  senator  says  "We 
will  make  reprisals  on  Britain."  And  just  as  soon  as 
you  get  that  kind  of  an  economic  conflict  started,  you 

36 


have  the  germs  of  war. 

And  our  theory  is  that  as  long  as  you  follow  the  dog 
eat  dog  philosophy  in  national  or  international  affairs, 
so  long  you  will  have  wars  that  will  be  based  primarily 
upon  the  desires  of  commercial  groups  for  aggrandize- 
ment. 

I  have  in  my  hand  here  an  article  written  in  1915 
by  Prof.  E.  R.  A.  Seligman,  professor  of  economics  of 
Columbia  University.  Professor  Seligman  has  been, 
so  far  as  I  know  throughout  the  whole  controversy,  a 
pro-war  man,  he  is  not  a  Socialist,  he  is  an  extremely 
conservative  man  and  has  been  conservative  and  has 
taken  the  conservative  position  on  the  question  of  the 
science  of  economics  throughout  this  work  which  is 
his  specialty,  and  he  has  written  a  book  called  "Eco- 
nomic Interpretation  of  History"  which  is  one  of  the 
standard  works  on  that  subject. 

Professor  Seligman,  as  I  say,  is  a  pro-war  conserva- 
tive. He  says: 

"While  economic  conditions  indeed  do  not  by  any 
means  explain  all  national  rivalry,  they  often  illuminate 
the  dark  recesses  of  history  and  afford  on  the  whole 
the  most  weighty  and  satisfactory  interpretation  of 
modern  national  contests  which  are  not  clearly  refer- 
able to  purely  racial  antagonisms  alone." 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  then,  do  you  appreciate  the  fact 
that  racial  antagonisms  have,  or  are  in  effect  in  war? 

A.     Undoubtedly. 

Q.     And  also  religion  may  affect  it? 

A.     Undoubtedly. 

Q.  And  what  you  mean  is  the  economic  determina- 
tion or  principal  factor  in  determining  war? 

A.  Yes,  the  economic  conditions  of  life  determine 
all  the  conditions  of  life.  Just  as  roses  and  cabbages 
grow  in  the  same  dirt,  in  the  garden,  so  racial  antagon- 
isms and  national  antagonisms  root  back  in  the  eco- 

37 


nomic  life.    We  all  have  to  eat  and  dress. 

Then  Prof.  Seligman  in  this  article  goes  on  and  dis- 
cusses this  particular  war  and  he  shows  how  economic 
factors  have  been  at  work,  and  then  he  says : 

"To  say  then  that  either  Great  Britain  or  Germany 
is  responsible  for  the  present  war  seems  an  unbeliev- 
able and  curiously  short-sighted  view  of  the  situation. 
Both  countries  know,  all  the  countries  of  the  world  are 
subject  to  the  sweep  of  these  mighty  forces  over  which 
they  have  but  slight  control,  and  by  which  they  are 
one  and  all  pushed  on  with  an  inevitable  fatality." 

That  is  his  thesis  and  that  is  the  thesis  of  the  Social- 
ist Party,  although  Prof.  Seligman  is  by  no  means  a 
socialist. 

I  have  here  another  statement  interesting  and  cor- 
roborative of  that  point  of  view.  This  is  some  of  the 
material  on  which  I  was  working  when  the  "Great 
Madness"  was  written  and  when  the  "Germs  of  War" 
was  written. 

This  is  an  excerpt  from  "Sea  Power,"  a  magazine 
published  by  the  Navy  League  in  September,  1916. 

This  is  the  Navy  League's  creed : 

"The  Navy  League  believes  that  most  modern  wars 
arise  largely  from  our  commercial  rivalries. 

"2.    That  we  are  now  seizing  the  world's  trade. 

"3.  That  following  the  present  war  will  come  the 
most  drastic  commercial  readjustments  and  the  most 
dangerous  rivalries  ever  known. 

"4.  That  the  United  States  will  be  the  storm  center 
of  these  disturbances. 

"5.  That  consequently  it  is  our  duty  to  guard  our- 
selves against  these  dangers  while  there  is  yet  time." 

And  then  in  another  of  their  magazines,  "The  Seven 
Seas,"  another  of  their  publications  they  say: 

"Since  the  days  of  the  wars,  in  the  name  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace,  the  battles  between  nations  have  ever 

38 


been  with  them  directly  or  indirectly  a  question  ot 
conquest." 

Q.     Where  is  that  from? 

A.  That  is  from  the  Navy  League,  that  is  an 
organization  of  the  largest  business  interests  in  the 
United  States. 

The  Navy  League  theory  is  like  Prof.  Seligman's 
theory  and  that  is  like  the  socialist  theory. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  theory  which  you  had  in  mind, 
and  which  you  were  supporting  in  your  "Great 
Madness?" 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  the  "Germs  of  War"  with 
you? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Will  you  now  take  up  the  portions  of  that 
which  are  distinguishable,  in  theory,  from  portions  of 
''The  Great  Madness"? 

A.  The  fourth  section  of  the  "Germs  of  War"  is 
headed  "Treasonable  Lying  and  War." 

"Before  human  nature  can  be  sufficiently  embittered  and 
terrified  to  produce  war  between  great  nations,  someone 
must  do  a  great  deal  of  missionary  work.  The  people  must 
be  prepared  for  war.  They  must  be  appealed  to,  stirred  up, 
exasperated,  enraged,  infuriated. 

"A  thorough-going  war  spirit  can  be  extracted  from  life 
only  after  years  of  steeping  and  simmering.  Children  are 
taught  to  hate.  In  their  games  they  slaughter  their  foes — 
by  name.  Then  school  books  teach  them  to  hate,  by  dis- 
torting the  facts  of  history  and  by  misrepresenting  their 
enemies.  Their  military  drills  and  patriotic  appeals  teach 
them  to  hate,  by  making  them  believe  that  their  country  is 
the  greatest,  strongest  country  on  earth,  and  their  enemies' 
country  is  the  weakest  and  meanest.  Their  churches  teach 
them  to  hate  by  telling  them  that  God  is  on  their  side,  while 
their  enemies  are  in  league  with  the  devil. 

"Thus  steeped  and  schooled  in  hate,  enthusiastic,  patriotic 
and  ignorant,  they  go  out  to  wage  war  against  oppression  in 
the  name  of  liberty. 

39 


"The  United  States  is  now  in  the  midst  of  a  campaign  of 
misrepresentation,  the  like  of  which  has  never  before  been 
undertaken  in  the  history  of  the  countrjr.  For  years,  the 
American  reading  public  has  been  treated  to  a  flood  of  sys- 
tematic lying  about  Mexico.  So  serious  did  the  situation 
become  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  finally 
forced  to  issue  a  warning  which  was  printed  in  the  papers 
March  26,  1916.  Among  other  things  the  President  charged 
the  great  vested  interests  with  a  deliberate  attempt  to  start 
a  war  with  Mexico  by  circulating  false  news  through  this 
country.  He  said,  "The  object  of  this  traffic  in  falsehood  is 
obvious.  It  is  to  create  intolerable  friction  between  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  de  facto  govern- 
ment of  Mexico  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  interven- 
tion in  the  interests  of  certain  American  owners  of  Mexican 
properties." 

"By  way  of  further  emphasis,  the  President  added,  'The 
people  of  the  United  States  should  know  the  sinister  and 
unscrupulous  influences  that  are  afoot,  and  should  be  on 
their  guard  against  crediting  any  story  coming  from  the 
border,  and  those  who  disseminate  the  news  should  make  it 
a  matter  of  patriotism  and  of  conscience  to  test  the  source 
and  authenticity  of  every  report  they  receive  from  that 
quarter.' 

"Here  is  a  deliberate  statement  made  by  the  highest  official 
in  the  United  States,  that  certain  of  the  great  vested  inter- 
ests are  trying  to  stir  up  a  war  between  the  United  States 
and  Mexico,  in  order  to  safeguard  their  properties  and  in- 
crease their  profits. 

"The  New  York  Times  comments  on  the  President's 
statement  in  a  way  that  indicates  that  the  President  would 
have  been  justified  in  issuing  his  warning  at  any  time  within 
the  past  six  years. 

"  'It  is  well  known/  says  the  Times  on  Sunday,  March 
26th,  1916,  'that  false  reports  about  the  hostility  of  Mexicans 
to  the  American  troops  of  the  punitive  expedition  have  been 
freely  circulated.  Southern  Texas  has  contained  many 
agencies  for  the  spreading  of  reports  calculated  to  involve 
the  United  States  in  difficulties  with  Mexico  since  the  very 
beginning  of  the  Madero  revolution  in  1910,  and  the  methods 
of  the  interventionists  have  been  perfectly  well  known  to 
our  government  and  the  American  newspapers.' 

"If  the  Times  is  correct,  and  as  one  of  the  leading  papers 
of  the  country  it  is  in  a  position  to  speak  with  authority, 

40 


there  have  been  six  years  of  deliberate  effort  to  start  a  war 
between  two  peaceful  countries,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
certain  American  investments  in  Mexico  'pay'. 

"Here  is  a  group  of  dynamiters  who  are  trying  to  wreck, 
not  buildings  but  nations.  Who  can  forget  the  wave  of 
frenzied  criticism  that  swept  over  the  United  States  when 
the  McNamara  brothers  were  tried?  They  had  destroyed 
life  and  property!  To  the  gallows  with  them!  Since  the 
President  spoke  his  warning  against  this  group  of  buccaneers 
who  are  seeking  to  embroil  two  nations  that  do  not  want 
war,  there  has  been  only  a  feeble  suggestion,  in  the  daily 
and  weekly  press,  that  an  investigation  be  made,  that  the 
offenders  be  discovered,  tried  for  treason,  and  made  to  suffer 
the  penalty  of  their  misdeeds. 

"Compare  this  journalistic  indifference  to  a  monstrous 
crime,  with  the  attitude  of  the  papers,  toward  preparedness. 
With  a  few  creditable  exceptions,  the  newspapers  of  the 
country,  during  the  last  year  and  a  half,  have  come  out 
strong  for  preparedness  and  have  deliberately  suppressed 
news  of  every  description  that  bore  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question.  It  is  enlightening  to  have  a  managing  editor  say 
to  a  committee  of  citizens  interested  in  offsetting  the  wave 
of  preparedness  hysteria — 'We  are  not  here  to  print  your  side 
of  the  case,  we  are  for  preparedness.  If  you  want  space  for 
your  side,  buy  it.' 

"Here  are  strange  doings!  The  President  contenting  him- 
self with  a  warning  against  treasonable  acts.  The  press  of 
a  great  country  solid  on  one  side  of  an  issue  of  the  most 
momentous  consequence  to  the  future  of  the  country,  and 
frankly  refusing  to  print  even  the  news  on  the  other  side. 
Why  are  some  people  anxious  to  bring  on  Mexican  Inter- 
vention? Why  is  the  American  Press  for  preparedness  and 
pro-Ally?" 

The  next  section,  which  I  shall  not  read,  is  devoted 
to  social  differences  that  led  to  war:  race,  nationality, 
language  and  religion  as  differences  that  led  to  war ; 
political  causes  of  the  war : 

"The  germs  of  war  lie  deep  in  the  competition  for  eco- 
nomic advantage  that  has  plagued  mankind  for  ages,  and 
that  still  rides  like  a  nightmare  on  the  neck  of  the  human 
race. 

41 


"6  The  Economics  of  War. 

"Economic  conflict  has  appeared  in  many  forms.  In  the 
early  dawn  of  history  men  were  fighting  for  the  fertile  val- 
leys of  the  world,— Ganges,  the  Nile,  the  Tigris.  Race  after 
race  swept  down  on  the  garden  spots  and  drove  out  or  en- 
slaved those  who  held  them.  For  ages,  history  was  a  record 
of  the  campaign  waged  by  vigorous  hill-tribes  against  the 
more  cultured,  richer  and  less  vigorous  valley  tribes.  Then 
came  the  wars  over  trade-routes,  and  the  struggle  for  the 
control  of  sea-going  commerce.  And  now,  under  the  domina- 
tion of  an  industrial  system  that  is  founded  on  the  machine, 
the  factory,  the  railroad,  the  bank  and  the  retail  store  comes 
the  international  competition  for  foreign  markets. 

"The  United  States,  despite  its  'mind  your  own  business' 
traditions,  is  deeply  involved  with  the  other  nations  of  the 
world,  in  the  struggle  for  foreign  markets.  Just  now  'South 
American  Trade'  is  our  watchword. 

"Germany  held  the  bulk  of  the  South  American  trade  be- 
fore the  war.  England,  Belgium  and  France  had  a  share. 
Until  recent  years  the  business  interests  of  the  United  States 
were  so  busy  with  the  conquest  of  the  continent  and  the  de- 
velopment of  American  resources  that  they  had  no  time  to 
bother  with  outside  sources  of  investment  and  profit.  Now 
that  the  important  resources  of  the  United  States  have  been 
brought  under  private  ownership,  the  business  interests  are 
turning  eager  eyes  to  Mexico,  Cuba  and  Central  and  South 
America. 

"American  business  interests  have  entered  the  race  to 
secure  their  share  of  the  unexploited  resources  and  the  un- 
developed trade  of  'backward'  countries.  They  are  hot  on 
the  trail,  but  they  must  meet  competition,  and  it  is  out  of 
such  competition  that  international  misunderstandings  fre- 
quently arise. 

"Has  it  ever  struck  you  as  remarkable  that  the  European 
War,  which  began  as  a  struggle  between  Serbia  and  Austria, 
should  have  developed  immediately  into  a  war  between 
England  and  Germany?  England  and  Germany  are  at  war! 
There  is  nothing  in  their  past  to  explain  the  conflict.  Eng- 
land has  fought  battles  with  all  of  her  principal  Allies.  It  is 
little  more  than  fifty  years  since  she  waged  a  bitter  war 
against  Russia.  England  and  France  are  hereditary  enemies. 
England  helped  to  sweep  Spain  from  her  position  as  a 

42 


mistress  of  the  world.  So  much  for  England's  Allies.  Now 
as  to  her  enemies.  There  has  never  been  a  war  between 
England  and  Germany.  Always  the  two  nations  have  been 
friends.  They  have  the  same  ancestors;  the  same  traditions. 
They  fought  side  by  side  at  Waterloo.  England  has  never 
come  into  conflict  with  Austria,  though  her  interests  have 
been  as  opposite  to  the  interests  of  Austria  as  they  have 
been  to  the  interests  of  Russia.  Despite  these  past  relations 
England,  Russia  and  France  are  now  Allies,  and  England 
and  Germany  are  the  chief  antagonists  in  the  war. 

"Why? 

"Why  should  a  war  begun  in  Central  Europe  change  so 
quickly  into  a  war  between  two  friendly  nations?  Who 
would  have  thought  it?  Who,  but  the  student  of  the  com- 
petition between  nations  for  the  World's  markets. 

"7  War  Business  is  Good  Business. 

"War  business,  or  business  war?  There  is  nothing  in  a 
name  but  there  is  a  great  deal  in  the  connection  that  exists 
between  modern  war  and  modern  business. 

"The  modern  war  is  a  business  proposition. 

"The  nation  which  prepares  for  war  mobilizes  munitions, 
materials,  money  and  men.  The  experience  of  the  past  few 
months  has  showed  that  the  hardest  thing  to  get  is  muni- 
tions and  the  easiest  thing  is  men. 

"Why  are  munitions  so  hard  to  get?  Because  in  a  modern 
war  the  amount  of  munitions  consumed  in  a  single  engage- 
ment would  have  sufficed  for  an  eighteenth  century  cam- 
paign. There  have  been  days  during  the  present  war,  when 
one  side  at  one  point  in  one  battle  front  has  fired  a  quarter 
of  a  million  shells  per  day,  and  continued  this  huge  ex- 
penditure day  after  day.  This  is  a  greater  use  of  ammuni- 
tion than  was  dreamed  of  ten  years  ago,  even  among  mili- 
tary experts. 

"The  peace  footing  of  most  nations  has  called  for  a  com- 
paratively small  capital  invested  in  munition  factories.  The 
countries  now  at  war  multiplied  their  munitions  capital  many 
times  before  they  were  on  a  war  basis.  This  sudden  in- 
crease in  a  highly  specialized  industry  and  the  economic 
changes  necessary  to  meet  the  situation,  have  called  into 
prominence  a  new  arm  of  the  military  establishment.  Today 
the  success  or  failure  of  the  war  is  in  the  hands  of  the 

43 


'Minister  of  Munitions,'  who  has  leaped  into  a  position  of 
supreme  importance. 

"Preparedness  for  the  war  involves  munition-shops 
woolen-mills,  and  stable  credit  before  one  regiment  can 
be  put  in  the  field.  War  today  is  largely  a  combination  of 
business  organization  and  applied  science.  Men  are  inci- 
dental. They  direct  the  war  machines.  They  are  'cannon 
fodder.'  They  play  almost  the  same  role  that  machine  hands 
play  in  an  up-to-date  factory. 

"Because  of  the  business  nature  of  up-to-date  warfare 
business  thrives  on  a  war  just  as  a  fire  thrives  on  fuel.  Dur- 
ing peace  times  buyers  are  careful,  they  look  the  goods  over, 
and  are  slow  in  making  up  their  minds.  Peace  times  are 
times  of  calm  and  deliberation.  War  times  are  times  of 
fever.  Men's  souls  are  aflame  with  patriotism,  fear,  blood- 
lust  and  hate.  'Everything  goes  in  war  time,'  and  at  hand- 
some prices. 

"The  European  War  has  been  a  wind-fall  for  the  United 
States.  Not  since  the  Civil  War  have  there  been  such  op- 
portunities. Contracts  are  large,  the  need  is  pressing,  price 
is  an  incident,  and  even  quality  is  sacrificed  to  speed. 

"Since  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War,  wealth  has 
piled  up  in  the  United  States  at  an  unheard  of  rate.  There 
have  been  immense  increases  in  the  prices  of  rubber,  copper, 
lead,  zinc,  petroleum,  steel  and  other  minerals,  and  like  in- 
creases in  the  prices  that  manufacturers  have  been  able  to 
get  for  their  products;  the  earnings  of  the  munition  factories 
have  been  phenomenal  as  have  the  dividends  paid  by  many 
of  the  war  trade  industries.  Export  trade  is  at  the  highest 
point  in  our  history.  The  war  in  Europe  is  the  greatest 
boon  that  American  business  has  perhaps  ever  experienced. 

"America  is  enjoying  real  prosperity — phenomenal  pros- 
perity. To  the  American  business  world  the  war  has  been 
a  Godsend. 

"War  a  Godsend? 

"Down  below  in  the  abyss  from  which  America  is  drawing 
her  countless  millions,  there  are  other  countless  millions. 
Cannons  crash  and  guns  splutter.  Commands,  shouts,  cries, 
curses,  screams  and  groans  fill  the  air.  Broken  bodies 
writhe  in  agony.  Other  bodies  lie  still.  Families  are  torn 
forever  asunder;  homes  are  desolated;  children  are  weeping 
for  their  fathers,  wives  for  their  husbands  and  mothers  for 
their  sons;  villages  lie  in  ashes  and  cities  in  ruins.  Pesti- 
lence creeps  from  house  to  house,  and  famine  whines  at  the 

44 


door.  Death  in  every  hideous  shape  stalks  through  the 
war-torn  countries.  Nations  heap  up  mountains  of  debt 
that  must  crush  joy  out  of  Europe  for  fifty  years.  Through 
the  crevices  and  the  yawning  chasms  of  this  frightful  wreck- 
age tiny  yellow  rivulets  and  large  yellow  streams  make  their 
way,  forming  pools  and  little  lakes  in  the  hollows.  Upon 
these  we  fling  ourselves  in  an  estacy  of  mad  joy,  warning 
all  others  back  and  crying  'Profit!  Profit!  Mine.'  My  very 
own!' 

"It  is  a  commercial  proposition  with  us.  They  are  anxious 
to  buy.  We  sell.  Business  is  good.  What  is  it  to  us 
whether  they  set  the  guns  we  make  in  trenches  or  put  them 
up  as  monuments  in  the  public  squares?  We  made  the  guns; 
they  bought  them.  They  have  what  they  wanted  and  we 
have  the  cash! 

"This  is  the  point,  exactly.  War  has  become  a  matter  of 
business.  War  profits  are  large  profits.  So  much  the  better. 
We  will  make  hay  while  the  sun  shines. 

"But  suppose  the  sun  should  cease  to  shine?  Suppose 
the  war  should  stop  tomorrow?  What  would  become  of 
the  hundreds  of  millions  of  capital  that  have  been  invested 
in  munitions  plants? 

"There  is  nothing  easier.  We  must  begin  now  to  prepare 
a  market  that  may  be  used  in  just  such  an  emergency.  A 
large  navy,  and  a  good-sized  standing  army  will  keep  a  good 
deal  of  munitions  capital  busy,  even  in  peace  times. 


"8.  The  War  Makers. 

"Those  who  benefit  most  immediately  and  most  directly 
by  the  war  business  are  the  makers  of  the  munitions  of  war. 
The  munition  makers  or,  more  correctly  the  'war  makers,' 
depend  for  their  livelihood  on  fear,  hatred,  preparedness, 
slaughter,  desolation. 

"The  jackal  is  a  prince,  the  vulture  a  gentleman,  the 
hyena  a  reputable  citizen  compared  with  these  war  traffick- 
ers. God  made  the  beasts  and  birds  what  they  are;  the 
munition  business  is  a  man-made  business.  The  quivering 
flesh  of  nations  is  its  food.  There  is  more  joy  among  the 
makers  of  munitions  over  one  nation  at  war  than  over  fifty 
nations  at  peace.  These  scavengers  of  civilization  make 
hell  on  earth  and  then  fatten  on  the  profits  of  their  frightful 
business. 

45 


"If  you  want  a  picture  of  the  work  of  the  munition  makers, 
write  to  Congressman  Clyde  H.  Tavenner,  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, Washington,  and  ask  for  copies  of  his  two 
masterful  speeches,  "The  World  Wide  War  Trust"  and 
"The  Navy  League  Unmasked."  In  the  first  of  these  speeches 
Congressman  Tavenner  shows  that  the  munition-makers 
have  received  huge  profits  from  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment. Shrapnel  that  were  manufactured  in  the  Gov- 
ernment arsenal  for  $7.94  were  sold  to  Uncle  Sam  by  the 
munition  makers  for  $17.50;  time  fuses  were  made  for  $2.92 
and  bought  from  the  munition  makers  for  $7.00;  armor  plate, 
torpedo  flasks,  rotary  drums — all  sold  to  the  government  for 
far  more  than  a  reasonable  profit  on  the  cost  of  production. 

"If  it  is  true  that  we  are  now  unprepared,  argues  Con- 
gressman Tavenner,  after  spending  six  hundred  millions  in 
the  past  five  years  on  our  navy;  if  we  are  unprepared  and 
spending  half  a  billion  each  year  on  our  war  establishment, 
there  must  be  some  reason.  'I  believe,'  he  says,  'that  these 
officers  who,  in  the  expenditure  of  the  people's  money,  have 
been  paying  $115,075  for  supplies  which  could  have  been 
obtained  for  $58,246,  should  some,where  or  in  some  manner 
be  required  to  make  a  public  accounting  for  their  acts. 

"Congressman  Tavenner  goes  into  the  question  of  armor 
plate  manufacture,  which  he  describes  as  'one  long  scandal.' 
He  shows  that  nine  official  estimates  place  the  cost  of 
making  a  ton  of  armor  plate  at  $247.17.  'Yet  since  1887  we 
have  purchased  217,398  tons  of  armor,  paying  the  armor 
ring  an  average  of  $440.04  per  ton."  Then  he  shows  how 
the  armor  plate  makers  of  England,  Germany,  Austria, 
France,  Italy  and  the  United  States  formed  an  armor  plate 
trust  and  he  tells  of  the  scandals  in  all  of  those  countries 
and  Japan  that  arose  out  of  the  efforts  of  these  war  traffick- 
ers to  sell  more  armor  and  thus  make  more  profits. 

"He  shows  how  the  war  makers  manufacture  news,  mis- 
represent events,  publish  false  alarms,  and  create  fear  in 
order  to  sell  munitions.  Case  after  case  he  cites,  in  which 
European  Governments  explored  the  trail  of  the  war  makers, 
and  found  them  plotting  and  planning  to  create  the  same 
kind  of  intolerable  friction  between  European  Governments 
that  the  American  interests  referred  to  by  the  President 
have  been  attempting  to  create  between  the  United  States 
and  Mexico. 

"Most  vital  of  all,  he  shows  that  while  the  United  States 
Government  was  experimenting  with  powder,  and  turning 

46 


the  results  of  their  experiments  over  to  a  great  American 
firm  of  powder  manufacturers,  this  American  firm  had  a 
contract  with  a  German  firm  which  required  it  to  inform 
the  German  firm  of  'every  improvement'  in  their  process 
of  manufacture,  and  to  keep  them  advised  of  the  orders  for 
powder  received  'from  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
or  any  other  parties.'  This  firm  was  actually  turning  over 
to  the  German  firm  full  information  regarding  all  of  the 
powder  secrets  and  powder  business  of  the  United  States 
Government. 

"Furthermore,  Congressman  Tavenner  shows  that  a  man 
high  in  the  military  circles  of  the  United  States  was  for- 
merly in  partnership  with  one  of  the  great  munition  firms, 
and  that  one  of  these  firms  employs  an  Ex-Army  Official 
and  Ex-Member  of  Congress  to  attend  to  its  business  in 
Washington.  So,  page  after  page,  the  sickening  recital 
continues. 

"The  speech  'The  Navy  League  Unmasked,'  shows  that 
tnese  same  war  makers,  or  their  representatives  run  up  and 
down  the  land  and,  in  the  name  of  patriotism  cry  'Prepare,' 
well  knowing  that  each  dollar  spent  for  preparedness  is 
money  in  their  pockets.  There  is  something  sinister  for  the 
future  of  the  republic  in  this  'pocket-patriotism'  or  'profits 
patriotism'  because,  in  the  last  analysis,  it  is  no  patriotism 
at  all. 

"A  group  of  Mexican  bandits  recently  made  a  raid  on  a 
town  in  the  United  States,  killed  United  States  citizens  and 
United  States  soldiers — killed  them  with  rifles  and  bullets 
made  in  the  United  States.  If  war  is  declared  tomorrow 
between  Mexico  and  the  United  States,  these  profit-patriots 
would  sell  guns  and  munitions  to  the  Mexicans  as  readily 
as  they  shipped  rotten  meat  to  the  American  soldiers  during 
the  Spanish-American  War.  Their  country  is  capital.  Their 
religion  is  profit.  Their  God  is  gold.  Yet  they  cry  patri- 
otism to  a  pathetically  ignorant  and  patient  citizenship 
which  is  beginning  to  wonder  whether  there  is  not  a  need 
for  preparedness  after  all." 

"9.     The  Wolf  Struggle  of  Nations. 

"England  was  the  first  nation  to  develop  the  modern 
competitive  factory  industry.  Her  capitalists  owned  the 
resources  and  the  machines.  They  hired  workers,  paid  them 
less  in  wages  than  they  created  in  product,  and  took  the 

47 


surplus  (rent,  interest,  dividends,  profits)  for  their  own. 
This  surplus  the  owners  could  not  consume,  so  they  in- 
vested it  in  new  mills  and  mines  at  home.  These  new  invest- 
ments created  new  floods  of  surplus.  The  capitalists  then 
went  abroad  in  search  of  investments.  They  found  iron 
ore  in  Cuba,  and  Chile,  and  oil  in  Mexico.  German,  English 
and  American  capitalists  invested  their  surplus  there.  There 
was  hard  feeling,  friction,  conflict.  Who  was  to  exploit 
their  choice  bits  of  the  earth? 

"Patriotic  Germany  was  ready  to  protect  the  investments 
of  her  capitalists.  Patriotic  England  was  willing  to  defend 
her  capitalists.  '  A  shot  sounded  from  somewhere  and 
England  and  Germany  were  at  war! 

"Now  the  American  capitalists,  who  are  in  charge  of  a 
similar  exploiting  system,  are  actively  engaged  in  their 
efforts  to  lay  their  hands  on  Mexico  and  South  America. 
They  are  busy  now,  and  it  is  Uncle  Sam's  turn  to  take  a 
hand.  The  war  will  end.  No  matter  whether  England  or 
Germany  wins,  the  victor  again  will  turn  her  attention  to 
Mexico  and  South  America. 

"The  same  international,  economic  competition,  based  on 
exploitation  at  home  and  investment  abroad,  that  drove 
England  and  Germany  into  war  will  drive  the  United  States 
to  war  with  the  victor  in  the  European  conflict,  no  matter 
which  nation  wins.  The  American  papers  talk  glibly  now 
of  sympathy  with  English  ideals.  Kaiserism  they  hate. 
Therefore  they  are  pro-ally.  They  forget  that  the  Czar  is 
also  pro-Ally,  and  Czarism  is  as  repellent  to  American  and 
English  ideals  as  Kaiserism  ever  hoped  to  be. 

"The  United  States  has  fought  two  wars  with  England, 
and  been  on  the  verge  of  two  more.  She  has  never  fought 
with  Germany,  but  it  will  be  as  easy  to  create  friction  in 
one  case  as  in  the  other.  If  you  do  not  believe  it,  read 
current  events;  read  history,  and  then  put  two  and  two 
together. 

"The  conflict  is  inevitable!  The  United  States  is  driving 
fast  toward  war.  Therefore,  let  us  prepare! 

"Just  so! 

"This  is  the  real  cause. 

"Here  are  the  germs  of  war,  lurking  in  economic  com- 
petition between  nations. 

"Now  we  know  why  we  are  to  prepare.  Now  we  know 
why  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  the  patriotism  around  the  cam- 
paign of  the  past  year  will  be  found  among  those  who  are 

48 


benefited  by  things  as  they  are  and  as  they  are  to  be,  with 
preparedness  to  back  them. 

"The  American  Exploiters  are  to  continue  their  system 
of  exploitation;  they  are  to  take  the  surplus  secured  by  this 
exploitation;  they  are  to  invest  this  surplus  for  the  purpose  of 
exploiting  resources  and  people  outside  of  United  States  and 
the  United  States  is  to  prepare  to  defend  them  in  this  new 
exploiting  venture.  Thus  preparedness  is  intended  to  back 
up  economic  piracy. 

"Do  you  object? 

"Are  you  willing  to  pay  higher  prices,  to  add  to  the  tax 
rate,  to  pile  up  national  debt,  perhaps  to  give  your  son, 
your  brother,  your  husband,  your  father,  in  this  holy  cause 
of  economic  exploitation?  The  oil  interests,  the  copper 
interests,  the  steel  interests,  the  timber  interests,  the  sugar 
interests,  are  calling  to  you,  'Prepare!  Prepare!'  will  you 
not  rush  to  their  aid? 

"You  may  hesitate  unpatriotically,  and  question — 'Why/ 
you  ask,  'do  they  not  sell  their  surplus  products  at  home? 
There  are  many  in  the  direst  need  here.  Why  not  America 
first?'  Why  not?  Because  the  wages  paid  by  these  Amer- 
ican exploiters  to  the  American  wage  earners  are  so  small 
in  comparison  to  their  product,  that  they  cannot  buy  back 
what  they  made.  The  American  wage  scale  stands  between 
the  American  worker  and  his  product.  Why  are  you  not 
satisfied? 

"What,  you  still  protest?  Then  know  this.  That  in  the 
past,  the  American  exploiters  have  been  under  a  grave  dis- 
advantage as  compared  with  their  brothers  abroad.  They 
alone,  among  the  capitalists  of  the  world,  have  had  no  great 
standing  army  to  protect  their  interests  in  their  own  coun- 
try. Consequently  malcontents  and  agitators  have  been  able 
to  stir  up  revolts  and  cut  profits.  Stand  aside!  Let  pre- 
paredness become  a  reality  and  the  vested  interests  of  the 
United  States  will  have  an  army  in  the  words  of  President 
Wilson's  last  message, — 'No  longer  than  is  actually  and 
continuously  needed  for  the  uses  of  days  in  which  no  ene- 
mies move  against  us.  Under  no  circumstances,'  he  says, 
'will  we  maintain  a  standing  army  except  for  uses  which  are 
as  necessary  in  times  of  peace  as  in  times  of  war.'  " 

"10.     Defending  American  Ideals. 

"A    chorus    of   protest    sounds,    'This    preparedness    is    to 
49 


defend  American  ideals,  American  homes,  and  American 
lives  against  the  invader.' 

"Therefore,  we  must  increase  our  navy  and  our  army. 
Therefore,  we  must  spend  more  billions  on  war  though  we 
were,  at  the  beginning  of  the  European  war,  spending  a 
larger  portion  of  our  national  revenue  on  war  than  any  other 
great  nation.  Still  we  are  'defenseless'  and  'utterly  at  the 
mercy  of  a  foreign  foe.' 

"If  that  is  true,  it  might  be  sensible  to  ask  what  has 
become  of  the  four  and  a  quarter  billions  that  we  have  spent 
during  the  past  twenty  years  on  the  navy  and  the  army.  But 
that  is  incidental.  The  real  question  is  whether  the  most 
threatening  enemies  of  American  ideals  are  in  Berlin  or  in 
New  York. 

"No  one  has  yet  invaded  the  United  States.  Those  worthy 
citizens  who  have  looked  under  their  beds  for  the  Kaiser  each 
night  during  the  past  eighteen  months  have  not  seen  him 
once.  The  Japanese  are  thousands  of  miles  from  our  shores. 
England  and  France  have  not  attacked  us.  Why  then  this 
chorus  of  protest? 

"Why  Lawrence? 

"Why  Paterson? 

"Why  Little  Falls? 

"Why  West  Virginia? 

"Why  Colorado? 

"Why  Youngstown,  and  the  copper  strike,  and  the  clothing 
strikes,  and  the  machinists  strikes? 

"Why  this  dissatisfaction?  This  unrest?  This  embryo 
revolution?  Can  it  be  that  the  noisome  tenement  rookeries; 
the  squalid  back  alleys;  the  toiling  children;  the  exploited 
women;  the  long  hours  of  high  pressure  work";  and  the  grind- 
ing tyranny  of  unlimited  industrial  power  have  aroused  the 
American  people  to  revolt? 

"Note  these  biting  phrases: 

"1.     Jobs  uncertain;  strikes;  lay-offs  and  sickness. 

"2.     Promotion  and  advancement  uncertain  and  slow. 

"3.     Favoritism  and  partiality  are  frequently  shown. 

"4.     Pay  small  and  limited  while  learning  a  trade. 

"5.     Same  old,  monotonous,  tiresome  grind  every  day. 

"6.     Stuffy,  gloomy  and  uninteresting  working  places. 

"7.     When  sick,  your  pay  stops  and  doctor's  bill  begins. 

"8.     If  disabled  or  injured  you  receive  little  or  no  pay. 

"9.  If  you  die  your  family  gets  only  what  you  have  saved 
from  your  small  wages. 

50 


"10.  Little  CLEAR  MONEY;  nearly  all  your  pay  goes  for 
your  living  expenses. 

"11.  Old  age,  sickness,  little  money  saved,  your  job  goes 
to  a  younger  and  more  active  man." 

"Do  you  know  where  they  came  from?  They  were  printed 
on  a  circular  issued  by  Uncle  Sam,  to  explain  why  young 
men  should  join  the  navy,  and  work  for  seventeen  dollars  a 
month  and  board. 

"American  ideals?  No.  They  are  not  included  in  the 
description.  That  is  not  a  picture  of  democracy,  of  oppor- 
tunity, of  liberty,  and  of  justice.  It  does  tell  the  story  of 
exploitation,  and  hopeless,  intolerable  human  degradation. 

"The  Kaiser  did  not  do  that  to  us.  No,  nor  did  the 
Mexicans,  or  the  Japanese.  Those  unspeakable  conditions 
of  American  life,  that  may  be  met  with  in  every  great  center 
of  industry,  commerce  and  finance,  from  New  York  to  San 
Francisco,  and  from  Chicago  to  New  Orleans,  are  the  pro- 
duct of  that  same  system  of  exploitation  that  we  are  now 
patriotically  preparing  to  defend  in  its  policy  of  foreign  ag- 
gression." 

This  is  the  last  section,  section  11. 

"11.     Swat  The  Germ. 

"No  thinking  man  can  be  patriotic  to  such  a  scheme  of 
economic  aggrandizement.  No  rational  human  being  can 
be  expected  to  rush  forward  to  the  defense  of  the  gang  that 
has  already  picked  his  pockets. 

"We  are  intelligent. 

"We  use  our  minds. 

"We  are  for  peace. 

"We  are  willing  to  prepare  for  peace. 

"The  means  of  preparedness  are  as  obvious  as  they  arc 
unwelcome  to  the  profit  patriots. 

"We  are  against  war.  We  think  we  have  found  the  germ, 
of  war.  Then  swat  the  germ!  Let  us  here  highly  resolve 
that  we  will  devote  our  energy,  our  thought,  our  lives  to  the 
work  of  destroying  the  germs  of  war.  Joining  hands,  let 
us  declare  that: 

"1.  War  makers  must  go!  Henceforth,  all  munitions  shall 
be  made  by  the  government. 

"2.  War  profits  must  go!  In  case  of  war  from  this  day 
forward,  every  able-bodied  man  in  the  United  States  will 
be  put  on  the  government  pay-roll  at  $17.00  a  month,  and 

51 


rent,  interest,  dividends,  profits  will  cease  until  the  war  is 
ended. 

"3.  Economic  Exploitation  must  go!  The  land,  the  re- 
sources, the  public  utilities,  the  social  tools,  must  all  be  con- 
trolled and  managed  socially,  not  for  profits,  but  for  service. 

"These  three  steps  we  will  take  in  order  to  destroy  the 
germs  of  war.  Then  having  turned  our  backs  on  the  outworn 
things  of  the  past,  we  will  begin  the  work  of  true  prepared- 
ness— for  life,  joy,  hope,  and  the  future.  In  furtherance  of 
this  plan  to  make  happy  noble  human  beings: 

"1.  We  will  guarantee  to  every  child  the  right  to  be  well 
born. 

"2.  We  will  guarantee  to  every  child  the  right  to  enough 
food,  clothing  and  education  to  insure  physical  and  mental 
health  and  growth. 

"3.  We  will  guarantee  to  each  adult  the  full  product  of  his 
labor. 

"4.  We  will  provide  insurance  against  sickness,  accident, 
unemployment  and  death. 

"5.  We  will  give  pensions  against  old  age  to  every  man 
and  woman  who  has  done  his  share  of  the  work  of  the 
world. 

"6.  We  will  take  for  social  purposes  all  social  values, 
whether  in  resources,  in  franchises,  or  in  the  product  of  any 
human  activity. 

"7.  And  finally  we  will  seek  to  guarantee  equal  oppor- 
tunity to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  through 
a  government  that  restricts  its  activities  to  those  necessary 
to  provide  for  securing  the  common  weal." 

Q.  I  think  you  have  a  letter,  a  copy  of  a  letter  to 
the  Toledo  University  that  you  referred  to  or  that  was 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Barnes. 

A.  This  is  the  letter  that  I  wrote  explaining  my 
position  on  militarism  on  March  10th,  1917,  and  also 
in  explanation  of  my  relations  with  the  Toledo  Uni- 
versity : 

"During  the  past  few  days  a  number  of  prominent  Toledo 
citizens  have  made  statements  indicating  that  my  further 
continuance  at  Toledo  University  will  prove  detrimental  to 
the  welfare  of  that  institution.  In  order  that  the  Board  of 
Directors  may  feel  free  to  act  for  the  best  interests  of  the 

52 


University,  I  have  tendered  my  resignation  to  take  effect  at 
their  discretion. 

"My  utterances  on  the  question  of  pacifism  and  patriotism 
have  let  to  the  storm  of  criticism  that  have  been  excited 
against  me  and  against  the  University.  May  I  take  this  op- 
portunity to  make  clear  my  position? 

"I  am  opposed  to  tyranny,  despotism  and  irresponsible 
power,  whether  vested  in  a  king,  kaiser  or  any  other  individ- 
ual or  group  of  individuals. 

"I  believe  in  the  democracy  and  the  brotherhood  of  all  men. 
No  community  can  endure  which  ignores  the  Golden  Rule, 
the  basic  law  of  social  life — 'Each  for  all,  and  all  for  each.' 

"Millions  of  people,  the  world  over,  are  today  seeking  to 
overthrow  German  militarism.  There  are  two  methods  of 
securing  this  result.  The  first  way  is  to  militarize  all  of  the 
great  nations.  I  am  opposed  to  this  plan  because  I  believe 
that  the  dearest  liberties,  liberties  of  democracy  must  be  sac- 
rificed in  the  process. 

"There  is  another  method  of  overthrowing  German  mili- 
tarism— to  promulgate  a  higher  ideal  than  the  ideal  of  mili- 
tarism. 

"Ideas  and  ideals  are  the  most  powerful  and  permanent 
things  in  the  world,  as  our  own  history  shows.  A  century 
and  a  half  ago  our  ancestors  immortalized  themselves  by 
broaching  the  idea  of  political  democracy  to  a  king-ridden 
world.  Since  that  time,  the  idea  has  encircled  the  earth. 

"The  only  possible  way  to  save  the  present  day  world  from 
militarism  is  to  cut  to  the  root  of  the  problem  and  establish 
an  industrial  democracy,  which,  in  its  turn  may  prove  a 
beacon  light  to  mankind.  If  we  adopt  militarism,  we  lower 
ourselves  to  the  level  of  German  militarism.  If  we  adopt 
industrial  democracy,  we  have  an  opportunity  to  raise  them 
to  our  new  plane  of  justice  and  liberty. 

"I  oppose  militarism  because  I  believe  it  stands  for  the 
brute  in  human  nature,  and  that  if  we  adopt  it  the  democracy 
is  doomed.  I  hold  to  the  doctrine, — 'Peace  on  earth  and  good 
will  among  men,'  because  I  believe  that  only  thus  can  the 
spirit  of  man  be  emancipated  and  the  human  race  be  saved. 
They  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword.  It 
is  only  those  who  are  willing  to  overcome  evil  with  good  that 
can  attain  to  the  full  promise  of  manhood. 

"I  revere  the  government  that  represents  democracy.  I 
honor  the  flag  that  stands  for  liberty  and  justice.  So  strong 
is  my  feeling  on  this  point  that  I  resent  seeing  the  govern- 

53 


ment  turned  over  to  an  irresponsible  plutocracy,  or  an  ir- 
responsible bureaucracy  just  as  I  resent  having  the  flag  which 
is  the  symbol  of  our  democracy,  used  to  cloak  special  priv- 
ilege and  shameless  exploitation. 

"Militarism  is  the  madness  of  the  past  dragging  us  down 
and  destroying  us.  The  spirit  of  brotherhood  and  good  will 
among  men  is  the  voice  of  the  future,  calling  us  to  a  higher 
plane  of  life  than  humanity  has  ever  known.  To  that  future 
I  have  dedicated  my  life,  and  so  I  purpose  to  continue  to  the 
end  of  the  chapter." 

Q.  That  letter,  I  assume,  was  sent  to  the  trustees 
of  the  Toledo  University? 

A.     It  was  sent  to  the  press  of  Toledo. 

Q.  You  used  the  term  "plutocracy."  Will  you  dis- 
tinguish it  as  you  use  it  in  your  work? 

A.  Plutocracy  is  a  word  of  the  same  root — mean- 
ing as  democracy;  plutocracy  means  rule  by  those 
who  own  wealth,  whereas  democracy  means  rule  by 
the  people.  Wherever  the  wealth  owners  rule  there 
you  have  plutocracy;  wherever  the  people  rule  there 
you  have  democracy. 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  give  a  definition  as  to  your 
understanding  of  the  world  "capitalist"  or  "capital- 
ism" as  you  use  it  in  this  book. 

A.  The  term  "capitalist"  I  used  means  a  person, 
the  major  portion  of  whose  income  is  derived  from 
rents,  interest,  dividends  or  profits.  Therein,  all  capital- 
ists are  not  necessarily  plutocrats  and  all  plutocrats 
are  not  necessarily  capitalists. 

Now  all  economic  control  is  in  a  very  few  hands 
compared  with  the  number  of  capitalists,  that  is, 
people  who  receive  their  income  through  rents,  inter- 
est, dividends  and  profits. 

Q.  That  is  you  think  as  an  abstract  proposition, 
one  receiving  a  profit  may  fill  both  positions,  so  far 
as  concrete  cases  are  concerned,  that  is  one  man  may 
have  a  salary — 

54 


A.  A  man  may  have  a  salary  and  an  income  from 
other  sources  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  If  you  will  now  refer  to  "The  Great  Madness" 
which  has  been  offered  here;  will  you  state  on  what 
you  based  the  statements  there,  your  conclusions? 

I  am  directing  you  to  recite  for  our  information  the 
data  on  which  you  based  that  theoretical  position 
which  you  there  state. 

A.  There  are  a  number  of  kinds  of  data.  In  the 
first  place  the  data  referring  to  the  concentration  of 
industrial  control. 

Q.  Will  you  refer  to  that  data  there  if  you  have  it, 
upon  what  you  acted  in  making  that  statement  and 
basing  your  opinion? 

A.  The  trust  movement,  as  such,  ended  about  1900, 
with  the  Spanish-American  War,  and  that  produced 
certain  results,  and  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  kind  of  results  that  that  produced.  Here,  for  ex- 
ample is  The  American  Woolen  Company  as  an 
instance  of  business  concentration.  The  American 
Woolen  Company  has  woolen  mills  as  follows :  Law- 
rence, Massachusetts ;  Blackstone,  Massachusetts ; 
Fulton,  New  York ;  two  at  Fitchburg,  Massachusetts ; 
Providence,  Rhode  Island;  Maynard,  Massachusetts, 
Dover,  New  Hampshire ;  three  at  Lowell,  Massachu- 
setts ;  Vasselborough,  Maine ;  Plymouth,  Massachu- 
setts ;  Showhegan,  Maine ;  Fairville,  Maine ;  Harris- 
ville,  Rhode  Island;  Winooski,  Vermont;  Webster, 
Massachusetts ;  Dover,  Maine ;  Franklin,  Massachu- 
setts ;  Enfield,  New  Hampshire  two  mills ; — 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  number  of  the  balance 
without  enumerating  them? 

A.  I  have  read  half  the  page  and  it  extends  for 
the  rest  and  goes  on  over  on  the  back.  That  type  of 
organization  is  a  concentration  under  one  head  of  a 
large  number  of  units  like  woolen  mills  and  rolling 

55 


mills  or  coke  ovens. 

Now  there  is  another  type  of  trustification  or  con- 
centration, tor  example  that  represented  by  the  Inter- 
national Harvester  Company.  They  make  harvesting- 
machinery  in  four  different  cities.  They  have  twine 
mills  in  three  different  cities.  They  have  iron  mines, 
coal  mines  and  a  steel  plant,  a  saw-mill  and  they  man- 
ufacture gasoline  engines,  wagons,  separators  and  so 
forth  in  five  cities.  They  own  four  railways.  In  other 
words  they  owned  different  kinds  of  industries  and 
then  they  have  one  plant  in  Sweden,  one  in  Denmark, 
one  in  Norway,  two  in  France,  one  in  Germany,  one 
in  Austria  and  one  in  Switzerland  and  two  in  Canada. 
In  other  words,  at  that  point  industry  breaks  over  the 
boundaries  of  national  lines  and  internationalizes 
itself. 

That  is  the  second  step  in  industry,  concentration — 

Q.  In  the  illustration  that  you  have  given  it  breaks 
over  a  limited  class  of  products  and  includes  all? 

A.     Includes  many  products. 

Q.     Includes  many  other  products? 

A.  Yes.  As  another  illustration  of  the  same  kind 
might  be  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey. 
This  company  owns  58  tank  line  steamers,  it  owns 
refineries  — 13  refineries,  two  in  Canada,  —  one  in 
Mexico,  one  in  Peru  and  the  rest  in  different  parts  of 
the  United  States.  It  owns  a  large  system  of  pipe  line 
property;  it  has  a  number  of  accessory  properties 
where  they  maufacture  cans,  cases  and  so  forth.  Then 
it  controls  The  Imperial  Oil  Company,  Ltd.  with  oil 
wells  in  Trinidad,  Mexico,  Southern  California  and 
Peru  and  controls  a  so-called  plant  in  Montreal.  It 
has  marketing  stations'  in  Canada.  Then  it  controls 
other  Companies  which  give  it  marketing  facilities 
and  manufacturing  facilities  in  Great  Britain  and  in 
seven  of  the  other  European  countries,  in  Asia  and 

56 


Australasia  and  South  Africa.  In  other  words  you  have 
there  an  illustration  of  an  international  economic  unit. 

After  that  movement  had  spent  its  force,  or  while 
it  was  working  itself  out,  there  came  the  next  step, 
financial  concentration. 

I  have  here  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  a  chart  from  the 
report  of  the  Pujo  Commission. 

O.     What  commission  was  that? 

A.  That  was  a  congressional  commission  appointed 
in  1912  to  investigate  the  concentration  of  control  and 
money  and  credit.  It  was  a  House  of  Representatives 
commission  and  they  summed  up  their  work  with  this 
chart.  In  the  center  of  this  chart  there  is  J.  P.  Morgan 
&  Company ;  Lee,  Higginson  &  Company ;  Kidder, 
Peabody  &  Company;  the  Continental  and  Commer- 
cial Trust  Company ;  The  Illinois  Trust  &  Savings ; 
The  Chicago  National  Bank,  and  then  they  have  con- 
nected with  them — I  won't  read  all  of  these  institu- 
tions, but  it  is  typical  of  the  kind  of  financial  control. 
— they  have  here  a  series  of  connections.  They  have 
here  the  telegraph  and  the  telephone  industry.  They 
have  here  a  series  of  manufacturing  corporations  like 
the  United  States  Steel,  the  American  Radiator  and 
the  United  States  Smelting  &  Refining  Company  and 
the  Baldwin  Locomotive  and  the  General  Electric  and 
The  Pullman  Company  and  The  International  Har- 
vester Company  and  a  dozen  smaller  corporations  ; 
and  then  they  have  the  railroads,  the  Great  Northern, 
the  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy,  the  Northern 
Pacific,  etc.,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  and  the  New 
Haven  and  the  New  York  Central.  The  Pennsylvania, 
etc.  Then  they  have  the  banks  and  trust  companies, 
The  National  Shawmut  Bank,  The  First  National 
Bank,  The  Old  Colony  Trust  Company,  Chicago,  New 
York,  Boston  and  a  series  of  banks.  Then  they  have 
the  insurance  companies,  the  Equitable  Life,  The 

57 


Mutual  Life.  Then  they  have  the  International  Mer- 
cantile Marine. 

I  have  not  read  all  of  the  names,  there  are  a  couple 
of  score  there,  but  that  illustrates  what  we  call  the 
concentration  of  financial  control  and  that  is  the  latest 
movement  in  concentration  of  business  in  the  United 
States.  In  addition  to  the  old  trust  units,  which  were 
individual  businesses,  really  corelated,  you  now  have 
big  banking  institutions  like  J.  P.  Morgan  &  Company 
reaching  out  into  the  railroads,  insurance,  banking, 
manufacture,  public  utilities  and  the  like  and  control- 
ing  vast  pieces  of  property.  I  don't  know  how  many 
billions  of  control  that  represents,  but  you  can  judge 
from  the  titles  that  I  have  read,  that  it  is  a  very  con- 
siderable control.  And  it  is  that  kind  of  a  statement 
that  lead  Mr.  LaFollette  in  the  senate  to  say  that, 
when  he  asserted  that  100  men — 

Q.  You  can  not  say  that  unless  you  are  quoting  it. 
I  think,  however,  I  am  objecting  in  this  instance  for 
you,  Mr.  Barnes. 

THE  COURT:  Mr.  Stedman;  I  want  to  ask  the 
witness  a  question  on  something  he  has  already 
spoken  of. 

MR.  STEDMAN:    Yes,  your  Honor. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  So  as  to  get  this  clear,  these  definitions  which 
have  been  given,  and  in  order  that  they  may  be  in  a 
clear  perspective  in  our  minds :  First,  I  understand 
you  defined  plutocracy  as  a  situation  where  the  people 
are  ruled  by  those  who  own  wealth? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Now,  in  that  characterization  or  phrase  "who 
own  wealth,"  whom  do  you  include?  Do  you  confine 
that  to  a  few  large  institutions  and  exclude  a  large 
number  of  people  who  have  some  money  or  do  you 
include  everybody  who  has  some  money  or  what? 

58 


A.  Well,  on  that  definition  I  would  not  make  any 
difference.  There  is  a  difference  between  a  man's 
ruling  because  he  is  rich  and  a  man's  doing  so  because 
he  is  a  man;  and  it  doesn't  make  any  difference 
whether  there  is  a  large  or  a  small  number  so  far  as 
the  definition  is  concerned.  Now,  I  believe  the  power 
is  exercised  in  the  United  States  by  a  relatively  small 
number.  However,  as  far  as  the  definition  of  pluto- 
cracy is  concerned,  it  means  that  the  authority  of,  that 
is  the  control  over  society  is  concentrated  in  the  hands 
of  people  who  control  power  because  they  possess 
wealth. 

Q.  Now  you  have  already  given  us  your  definition 
as  to  plutocracy  and  how  it  is  applied  to  more  than 
one  particular  kind  or  class  of  people? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Now  in  order  that  we  may  be  clear  as  to  the 
meaning  of  that  word  from  your  point  of  view : 

Do  you  include  in  that  list  say,  a  man  who,  by  his 
own  efforts,  either  with  his  hands  or  with  his  brain  or 
both,  at  some  stage  of  his  life,  gets  to  a  point  where 
he  owes  no  debts,  where  he  is  actively  engaged  in 
some  occupation  which  you  would  agree  was  socially 
useful  and  where  he  has  got  net  to  his  credit,  in  liqui- 
dated cash  or  property  of  some  kind,  let  us  say 
$10,000.  Is  he  a  member  of  the  plutocracy  within 
your  definition? 

A.  Probably  not.  The  members  of  the  plutocracy 
within  my  definition  are  those  which  exercise  an 
active  control  over  economic  affairs.  And  you  can 
make  your  illustration  even  more  extreme  and  take 
the  widows  and  orphans  who  hold  railroad  stock,  they 
are  certainly  not  members  of  the  plutocracy,  although 
they  are  capitalists  in  that  they  are  getting  their  in- 
come from  interest  and  dividends  and  although  they 
exercise  no  control. 

59 


We  socialists  believe  that  the  right  of  power  is  an 
economic  power  and  we  therefore  believe  that  who- 
ever owns  the  job  and  the  products  and  the  surplus 
wealth  will  control  ordinarily  everything  else  in  sight. 

Now  a  small  coterie  of  people  in  America  own  the 
jobs  of  the  rest.  Now  in  a  city  like  New  York,  I  sup- 
pose 90  per  cent,  of  the  people  work  on  jobs  owned 
by  somebody  else. 

In  the  second  place  the  product  in  America  is  owned 
by  a  small  coterie  of  people.  That  is  they  own  the 
coal  in  transit,  they  own  the  steel  in  process  of  man- 
ufacture, they  own  the  wheat  in  process  of  trans- 
formation into  flour  and  so  forth.  The  worker  in 
America,  the  ordinary  worker  works  on  a  job  owned 
by  somebody  else.  He  works  on  a  product  owned  by 
somebody  else ;  the  worker  in  a  flour  mill  does  not  own 
the  wheat  he  works  on,  the  worker  in  a  silk  mill  does 
not  own  the  silk  he  works  on  and  the  worker  in  the 
steel  mill  does  not  own  the  steel  he  works  on.  In 
return  for  his  labor  he  gets  a  wage  and  over  and  above 
that  there  is  a  profit  or  surplus  produced  and  that  goes 
to  the  owner  of  the  job.  So  that  the  small  group  of 
people  in  the  United  States  who  own  the  essential 
jobs,  resources,  transportation,  manufacturing,  financ- 
ing and  merchandising,  the  small  group  which  owns 
those  essential  jobs  own  the  jobs  of  the  majority,  own 
the  product  and  own  the  surplus  created  in  industry. 

Now  given  your  ownership  and  the  economic  means 
of  livelihood  and  the  rest  naturally  follows: 

That  is,  the  control  by  the  plutocracy  of  the  ma- 
chinery of  society.  For  example,  the  newspapers 
depend  on  their  advertising,  the  wealth  owners  adver- 
tise in  the  newspapers  and  therefore  the  newspapers 
are  likely  to  do  what  the  wealth  owners  want  done. 
The  preparedness  campaign  was  an  excellent  illustra- 
tion of  that.  If  a  college  wants  to  acquire  a  quarter 

60 


of  a  million  dollars  they  can  not  get  it  from  working 
people,  they  have  got  to  go  to  a  member  of  the  plu- 
tocracy, the  owning  class,  to  the  people  who  have  got 
the  quarter  of  a  million  dollars,  and  then  as  I  know 
in  instance  after  instance  they  are  good  because  they 
want  another  quarter  of  a  million  later  on  and  they 
know  where  to  go  to  get  it. 

BY  MR.  STEDMAN : 

Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  "good?" 

A.  I  will  just  illustrate  by  what  one  college  presi- 
dent said  to  me.  He  said :  "Well,  I  got  a  quarter  of 
a  million  of  dollars  from  a  certain  foundation,"  nam- 
ing him ;  he  said :  "I  spent  a  year  and  a  half  in  pre- 
paring myself,"  and  he  said :  "I  was  prepared  on 
every  question  that  they  could  ask,"  and  he  knew  the 
man  who  was  going  to  ask  the  questions  and  saw  that 
on  every  question  he  was  prepared  right.  So  that 
when  he  came  for  his  quarter  of  a  million  he  was  sure 
that  he  was  in  perfect  accord  with  the  Foundation. 
And  then  he  said  to  me :  "Do  you  know  a  professor 
of  sociology  that  I  could  get  now?  You  understand 
I  don't  want  a  wild-eyed  radical,  I  want  a  sane  safe 
man."  Now  he  was  planning  to  go  back  for  his  next 
quarter  of  a  million  and  he  would  not  have  anybody 
in  his  institution  who  would  violate  the  spirit  of  the 
Foundation  that  was  to  give  him  his  quarter  of  a 
million.  Now  that  is  just  an  illustration.  That  is  not 
bribery,  that  is  not  corruption,  it  is  just  a  pervasive 
influence  that  always  goes  out,  goes  forth  and  con- 
trols, it  is  the  influence  which  naturally  comes  from 
those  circumstances. 

If  I  go  to  a  man  and  ask  him  for  $100  why  the  very 
first  thing  I  want  to  do,  I  have  got  to  get  myself  in 
tune  with  his  tune,  or  otherwise  I  won't  get  the  $100. 
We  find  the  same  thing  in  churches,  when  they  want  to 
get  the  money  to  do  anything  for  the  churches,  they 

61 


go  to  the  rich  not  to  the  good ;  they  have  to  go  to 
those  who  have  it  because  if  you  are  going  to  build, 
for  instance  a  pipe  organ  or  to  build  an  edifice  or  re- 
carpet  the  church  and  you  have  got  to  have  money 
and  the  people  who  have  the  money  are  the  people 
that  are  the  owners,  the  rich,  the  owners  of  wealth. 
And  in  this  same  way  with  various  other  public 
institutions. 

THE  EIGHTH  JUROR:     May  I  ask  a  question? 

THE  COURT:    Yes. 

BY  THE  JUROR: 

Q.  Would  you  consider  any  influence  in  this  mat- 
ter to  be  organized  or  unorganized  in  mentioning  a 
definition  of  plutocracy? 

A.  In  part  it  is  instinctive  and  unorganized,  and  in 
part  it  is  intelligent  and  very  definitely  organized.  For 
example,  that  chart  shows  you  a  number  of  things, 
that  part  of  it  is  very  definitely  organized  for  one 
thing.  There  is  an  instinctive  cohesion  of  wealth.  By 
the  way,  that  phrase  was  used  by  Grover  Cleveland. 
There  is  an  instinctive  cohesion  of  wealth,  what  we 
call  a  class  consciousness  or  group  consciousness  as 
sociologists  put  it,  that  is  instinctive.  Above  that  and 
beyond  it  there  is  a  very  intelligent  organized  move- 
ment or  group. 

Q.     In  sympathy? 

A.  Sympathetic.  The  sympathy  is  rather  instinct- 
ive, the  organization  is  rather  intellectual. 

THE  WITNESS :  May  I  complete  my  answer  on 
the  question  of  control? 

BY  MR.  STEDMAN : 

Q.     Yes. 

A.  There  is  a  clause  here  on  page  7  about  the  con- 
trol by  the  vested  interests  of  natural  resources,  banks, 
railroads,  mines,  factories,  political  parties,  public  of- 
ficers, courts  and  court  decisions  and  school  systems, 

62 


the  press,  the  public,  the  movie  business,  the  maga- 
zines and  so  forth.  I  wanted  to  say  just  a  word  in  that 
connection : 

Whoever  holds  the  purse  strings  calls  the  tunes.  So 
also  is  it  true,  along  that  same  line,  that  those  who 
hold  the  job,  the  product  and  the  surplus,  are  able  to 
call  the  tune. 

And  now  there  is  another  and  a  very  important  fac- 
tor in  that  connection.  When  a  man  who  is  studying 
to  be  an  engineer,  or  a  man  who  is  studying  to  be  a 
lawyer,  goes  to  a  university  or  a  technical  school,  he 
goes  to  a  university  or  a  technical  school,  as  a  rule, 
that  has  got  the  money  directly  or  indirectly  from  the 
owning  group,  and  that  is  the  point  of  view  that  I 
tried  to  indicate ;  and  therefore  as  a  student,  he  is 
trained  up  to  be  of  a  certain  mind.  When  he  gets  out 
of  school,  suppose  he  is  a  lawyer,  he  goes  into  the 
practice  of  law.  The  successful  lawyers  today  are 
necessarily  corporation  lawyers  because  most  all  busi- 
ness is  corporation  business  and  most  law  business  is 
corporation  business.  Therefore,  if  a  man  is  success- 
ful at  the  Bar,  as  a  rule,  probably  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  he  is  a  corporation  lawyer  or  he  works  for  cor- 
porations. He  does  that  for  a  period  of  eight  or  ten 
years.  At  the  end  of  that  time  he  gets  to  be  a  judge, 
and  the  spirit,  the  attitude — 

O.     Not  all  of  them! 

(Continuing) — and  the  spirit,  the  attitude  with 
which  he  approaches  his  problem  is  not  the  spirit  of 
the  man  who  has  lived  on  $15  a  week,  it  is  not 
the  spirit  of  the  labor  unions,  it  is  not  the  spirit  or  the 
attitude  of  the  working  class,  because  his  entire  clien- 
tele, his  club  life,  his  social  life,  has  been  entirely  with 
the  other  group,  and  therefore  you  get,  unconsciously, 
— and  I  think  most  of  this  influence  is  unconscious  in- 
fluence,— and  you  get  newspaper  men,  lawyers,  preach- 

63 


ers,  all  of  what  we  call  the  professional  class,  reflecting 
the  spirit  of  that  control  rather  than  the  spirit  of  the 
man  who  is  working  for  $15  a  week. 

The  way  in  which  that  works  out  in  government  is 
very  interestingly  characterized  by  President  Wilson. 
I  would  like  to  say  for  the  President,  that  President 
Wilson  is  one  of  the  best  known  historians  and  is  one 
of  the  most  thoroughly  grounded  political  scientists  in 
the  United  States.  All  of  his  life  has  been  devoted  to 
study  and  investigation  of  these  problems,  and  he  is 
eminently  prepared  as  a  student  of  the  subject  to  give 
utterances  of  value.  He  wrote  a  book  called  "The 
New  Freedom." 

MR.  BARNES :  What  was  the  date  in  which  that 
was  written? 

THE  WITNESS:     1912. 

MR.  STEDMAN :    And  republished  in  1918. 

(Continuing)  "The  masters  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  are  the  combined  capitalists  and  manufacturers 
of  the  United  States.  It  is  written  over  every  intimate  page 
of  the  records  of  Congress;  it  is  written  all  through  the 
history  of  conferences  at  the  White  House;  that  the  sug- 
gestions of  economic  policy  in  this  country  have  come  from 
one  source,  not  from  many  sources.  The  benevolent  guardi- 
ans, the  kind-hearted  trustees  who  have  taken  the  trouble  of 
government  offices  off  our -hands,  have  become  so  conspicuous 
that  almost  anybody  can  write  out  a  list  of  them.  They  have 
become  so  conspicuous  that  their  names  are  mentioned  upon 
almost  every  political  platform.  The  men  who  have  under- 
taken the  interesting  job  of  taking  care  of  us  do  not  force 
us  to  requite  them  with  anonymously  directed  gratitude.  We 
know  them  by  name. 

"Suppose  you  go  to  Washington  and  try  to  get  at  your 
Government  you  will  always  find  that  while  you  are  politely 
listened  to  the  men  really  consulted  are  the  men  who  have 
the  biggest  stake — the  big  bankers,  the  big  manufacturers, 
the  big  masters  of  commerce,  the  heads  of  railroad  corpora- 
tions and  of  steamship  corporations. 

"I  have  no  objection  to  these  men  being  consulted  because 
they  also,  though  they  do  not  themselves  seem  to  admit  it, 

64 


are  part  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  j)ut  I  do  very 
seriously  object  to  these  gentlemen  being  chiefly  consulted 
and  particularly  to  their  being  exclusively  consulted,  for,  if 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  to  do  the  right  thing 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States  it  has  got  to  do  it  directly 
and  not  through  the  intermediation  of  these  gentlemen. 
Every  time  it  has  come  to  a  critical  question  these  gentlemen 
have  been  yielded  to  and  their  demands  treated  as  the  de- 
mands that  should  be  followed  as  a  matter  of  course. 

"The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  a  foster-child 
of  the  special  interests.  It  is  not  allowed  to  have  a  will  of 
its  own." 

And  I  might  say  that  we  socialists  believe  that 
under  the  capitalist  system  that  must  necessarily 
follow. 

MR.  BARNES:  That  was  before  Mr.  Wilson  be- 
came President  of  the  United  States? 

MR.  STEDMAN:  But  I  say  he  authorized  an 
edition  in  1918,  so  that  is  one  instance  in  which  he  did 
not  change  his  mind. 

Q.  Mr.  Nearing,  at  the  close  of  the  session,  you 
were  reading,  as  I  recall,  from  Woodrow  Wilson's 
work  Is  there  anything  further  you  have  to  refer  to 
there  ? 

A.  There  is  just  one  more  point  that  I  might  raise, 
in  answer  to  one  question  that  the  Judge  asked,  and 
that  is,  the  income  figures  as  published  by  the 
United  States  Department  of  Internal  Revenue.  They 
throw  some  light  on  the  question  as  to  how  many 
people  are  in  on  the  game.  In  1916-1917  out  of  103,- 
000,000  people,  there  were  121,691  who  received  in- 
comes of  $10,000  or  over  per  year.  That  is  a  little 
over  one  in  a  thousand. 

There  were  17,000  who  received  incomes  of  $50,000 
or  more  per  year  out  of  a  total  of  103,000,000  people. 
In  other  words  the  percentage  of  people  who  got 

65 


large  incomes  and  who  get  large  incomes  at  the  present 
time,  if  you  mean  by  "large"  $10,000  or  more,  is  one- 
tenth  of  one  per  cent  of  the  American  people. 

Now  that  is  not  a  complete  answer  to  the  question, 
but  it  does  throw  some  light  on  the  question. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

O.     That  has  only  to  do  with  income? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     And  not  with  capital? 

A.  That  raises  a  question  of  how  many  people  are 
well  to  do.  You  asked  whether  that  was  a  large  num- 
ber or  small  number,  and  it  is,  comparatively,  a  very 
small  number. 

THE  COURT:  Let  me  ask  you  then,  and  I  direct 
my  inquiry  solely  as  to  the  meaning  of  words : 

Q.  In  this  second  to  the  last  paragraph  of  Section 
1  on  page  7  you  use  the  word  "Control"  and  so  forth. 
Now  was  control  as  used  there, — do  you  mean  by  that 
intellectual  control  or  what  may  be  called  "physical 
control,"  or  what? 

A.  I  meant  by  that  economic  control  through  own- 
ership and  emotional  control  through  sympathy  and 
intellectual  control  through  conscious  organizations, 
all  three. 

Qf.  Well  now,  let  me  ask  you  this :  Eliminating 
from  your  mind  for  the  minute  the  courts  of  inferior 
jurisdiction  and  directing  your  mind  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  what  did  you  mean  by  the 
phrase,  "And  controlled  by  the  vested  interests  of 

courts  and  courts  decisions,"  having  in  mind 

now  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States? 

A.  I  meant  for  example  the  constructions  that  have 
been  put  upon  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  As  I  un- 
derstand the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  it  was  made  to 
protect  certain  human  rights.  As  it  has  been  con- 
strued, it  has  been  construed  to  protect  property 

66 


rights;  and  I  might  say  that  at  one  time  I  made  an 
investigation  of  Supreme  Court  decisions,  covering  a 
period  of  about  60  years,  and  I  think  that  nine-tenths 
of  them  are  decisions  regarding  property.  In  the  early 
period  they  were  decisions  regarding  personal  rights. 
In  the  latter  period,  the  questions  that  were  decided, 
the  most  6f  them,  that  came  before  the  Supreme  Court, 
have  been,  primarily,  involving  questions  of  property 
rights.  And  I  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  construed  the  Constitution  in  that 
way,  on  the  subject  of  property  rights,  and  I  believe 
that  as  those  constructions  have  gone,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  property  rights  have 
been  made  superior  to  human  rights  or  personal 
rights. 

O.  You  think  that  your  conclusion,  if  I  gather  cor- 
rectly, has  a  bearing  on  the  control  of  the  Supreme 
Court  by  what  you  designate  as  the  "vested  interests"? 

A.  That  comes,  as  I  indicated  this  morning,  or 
tried  to  indicate,  through  the  control  of  the  schools 
through  which  these  men  get  their  education ;  through 
the  control  of  the  principal  sources  of  revenue,  in  the 
law,  so  that  these  men,  as  a  rule,  in  order  to  make  a 
living,  as  lawyers,  must  work  for  the  corporations;  it 
does  come  through  the  control  that  is  exercised  by  the 
ruling  class  over  its  own  membership. 

The  Supreme  Court  judges,  as  a  rule — I  know  of  no 
recent  exceptions — are  selected  from  what  you  would 
call  the  professional  or  ruling  or  dominating  class  in 
the  country ;  and  it  is  from  the  big  business  lawyers  or 
the  lawyers  of  high  professional  standing  that  those 
men  are  taken,  whether  they  are  lawyers  or  doctors  or 
newspaper  men,  they  are  all  working  under  a  system 
that  is  dominated  by  an  economic  power,  and  all 
working  as  a  part  of  that  system. 

BY  MR.  STEDMAN: 

67 


Q.  You  don't  mean  in  that  control  that  they  go 
around  and  impress  them  with  any  specific  objective? 

A.  No.  The  control  is  exercised,  as  I  say,  through 
the  training,  through  the  environment,  the  club  life, 
the  personal  association,  the  business  relations,  the 
working  associations  of  these  men. 

Q.     And  the  habit  of  it  all  has  developed? 

A.  And  their  habits  of  life  have  been  influenced 
greatly  by  their  associations  and  is  the  product  of 
those  associations.  In  other  words,  I  believe  that 
bribery  is  a  very  crude  and  very  seldom  resorted  to 
method  of  control.  The  plutocracy  does  not  control 
through  bribery  except  in  a  very  minor  number  of 
cases,  it  is  quite  negligible  as  a  factor.  The  only  con- 
trol that  is  exercised  is  the  control  through  social, 
political  and  economic  relationships. 

Q.  Directing  the  mind  to  sustain  that  system  of 
society? 

A.  And  developing  the  psychology  for  sustaining 
it.  May  I  speak  about  this  Section  No.  2? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.  The  second  section  of  the  pamphlet  is  an  at- 
tempt to  describe  the  preparedness  campaign,  and  in 
writing  that  section  I  had  in  mind  certain  facts :  For 
example,  at  that  time  I  was  traveling  a  great  deal 
around  the  United  States.  Whenever  they  took  me 
into  a  hotel,  to  a  hotel  room,  I  found  three  books,  one 
a  Bible  given  by  the  Gideon's,  the  second  a  book  called 
"Leading  Opinions  Regarding  National  Defense,"  by 
Hudson  Maxim,  and  third,  a  book  called  "Defenseless 
America,"  by  Hudson  Maxim. 

I  don't  know  that  they  were  in  every  hotel  in  the 
United  States,  but  I  understand  that  they  were  to  be 
found  in  nearly  every  hotel. 

And  then,  on  the  22nd  of  March,  1916,  the  New  York 
State  Chamber  of  Commerce  published  a  statement,  a 

68 


report  on  "The  Common  Defense" : 

"We  have  all  declared  the  belief  that  the  subject  of 
common  defense  is  a  business  question  and  that  busi- 
ness methods  and  principles  should  be  applied  to  it." 

Q.     What  are  you  reading  from? 

A.  This  is  the  report  from  the  New  York  Chamber 
of  Commerce  entitled  "A  Report  on  the  Common 
Defense,"  published  in  1916. 

The  chief  source  of  information  on  this  subject, 
however,  is  contained  in  the  reports  of  the  Navy 
League  and  The  National  Security  League. 

I  have  here  in  my  hand  a  large  number  of  their 
pamphlets  and  I  wish  to  refer  shortly  to  certain  pages 
of  this  propaganda. 

In  June,  1915,  the  Navy  League  makes  the  state- 
ment that  "the  secretary  is  assisted  in  his  work  of 
organizing,  publicity  and  patriotic  agitation  by  a  staff 
of  field  secretaries  whose  duties  are  to  establish  local 
organizations  of  the  League  upon  a  firm  basis,  to 
distribute  literature,  arrange  meetings,  and  give  lec- 
tures and  addresses,  mostly  illustrated,  before  impor- 
tant business,  religious,  social,  educational  and  patri- 
otic societies  of  the  country." 

At  the  annual  meeting  that  same  year  they  reported 
that  they  had  distributed  pamphlets  to  the  number  of 
over  500,000  copies. 

Then  they  reported  regarding  a  widespread  cam- 
paign in  the  colleges,  which  included  organizations  in 
37  of  the  states,  and  a  total  membership  at  that  time 
of  70,000. 

I  want  to  refer  particularly  to  the  methods  of  pro- 
paganda that  the  League  employed.  For  example : 

They  state  in  October,  1915:  "With  an  adequate 
force,  both  naval  and  military,  the  United  States  will 
be  in  a  position  not  only  to  enforce  the  rights  of  a  just 
share  of  the  world's  commerce,  but  also  they  will  be 

69 


able  to  forward  civilization  by  aiding  other  nations  to 
attain  their  share." 

O.     That  is  in  October,  1915? 

A.     Yes,  1915.     This  is  from  the  July  issue,  1915: 

"Do  Americans  realize  that  one  of  the  reasons  why  we 
must  of  necessity  be  intensely  concerned  in  the  submarine 
and  trade  warfare  now  waged  between  Germany  and  the 
allies  is  that  in  not  having  ships  of  our  own  with  which  to 
carry  our  Four  Billion  Dollars  worth  of  merchandise  and  the 
German  ships  being  unavailable,  that  we  will  lose  over  Two 
Billion  Dollars  worth  of  export  trade  unless  merchant  ship- 
ping of  the  allies  are  free  and  able  to  carry  our  goods? 

"This  question  faces  us  squarely  in  this  country:  will  we 
continue  to  jeopardize  our  Four  Billion  Dollar  trade  with 
the  world  by  trusting  to  luck,  fate  or  the  good  will  of  fighting 
nations,  which  may  have  the  shipping  in  which  to  carry  our 
goods  to  safety  or  destruction?" 

Then  in  September,  1915,  they  said: 

"German  standards  of  militarism  would,  of  course,  be  im- 
possible among  Anglo-Saxons,  but  this  does  not  minimize 
the  fact  that  world  empire  is  the  only  natural  and  logical  aim 
of  a  nation  that  desires  to  remain  a  nation." 

Then  in  November,  1915 — most  of  these  quotations 
are  from  "Seven  Seas,"  one  of  the  official  publications 
of  The  Navy  League: 

"We  have  now  on  our  hands,  what  seems  to  be  a  white 
elephant  to  some,  a  republican  empire,  and  no  longer  such 
a  question  of  doubting  whether  or  not,  to  have  a  navy  as 
large  as  England's.  The  navy,  for  a  coast  line  such  as  the 
United  States  possesses,  a  navy  which  could  uphold  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  now  moribund,  such  a  navy  must  be  at 
least  twice  the  size  of  the  British  navy.  And  the  first  step 
to  be  taken  so  as  to  secure  that  sized  navy  is  for  the  American 
citizens  to  shake  off  the  timorous  manner  which  is  our  char- 
acteristic, in  asserting  our  Federal  rights.  The  Imperialism 
of  the  American  is  a  duty,  a  credit  to  humanity.  He  is  the 
highest  type  of  imperial  master.  He  makes  beautiful  the 
land  he  touches,  beautiful  with  moral  and  physical  clean- 
liness; which  sounds  rather  prosaic,  but  is  nevertheless  the 
principal  of  happiness  for  the  savage  if  not  for  the  imperialist. 
England  certainly  owns  or  has  in  some  way  a  very  large 

70 


portion  of  the  Earth's  land  surface  and  practically  has  for 
some  time  until  quite  recently  controlled  the  oceans  which 
cover  the  hidden  land  surface.  There  should  be  no  doubt 
that  even  with  all  possible  morals,  it  is  the  absolute  right  of 
a  nation  to  live  to  its  full  intensity,  to  expand,  to  found  colo- 
nies, to  get  richer  and  richer  by  any  proper  means  such  as 
armed  conquest,  commerce,  diplomacy." 

Q.     That  is  from  what  issue? 

A.  That  is  from  November,  1915.  This  is  from 
February,  1916: 

"The  financier,  the  really  great  one,  is  worthy  of  his  hire. 
The  pacifist, — the  professional  politicians,  though  they 
possess  in  their  ranks,  not  a  few  able  captains  of  industry, 
considered  it  as  being  very  dangerous  to  the  country  to  allow 
armament  makers  to  have  very  large  profits  or  to  do  any 
lobbying  or  advertising.  The  pacifists  make  it  a  point  to 
arouse  the  ever  latent  prejudice  against  other  peoples'  pro- 
fits, particularly  when  believed  to  be  enormous.  Democracy 
has  certain  glorious  advantages,  but  in  matters  relating  to 
foreign  policy  and  particularly  to  war,  it  is  extremely  incom- 
petent. If  the  incentive  of  great  profits  is  not  allowed  to 
serve  as  a  motor  to  great  firms,  then  those  firms  will  not  use 
their  full  initiative  and  they  will  fall  into  mere  shadows  of 
themselves.  Very  fortunately  for  themselves  in  Europe,  all 
the  great  powers  were  exceedingly  liberal  with  their  arma- 
ment makers.  The  only  escape  we  can  possibly  have  from 
the  dreadful  incapacity  which  hangs  over  us  is  for  some 
powerful  and  fearless  group  of  individuals  to  prod  the 
delinquent,  to  offer  the  right  people  unlimited  profits  so  that 
they  would  make  too  much  ammunition,  too  much  navy,  too 
many  flying  machines — all  of  which  no  government  of  a 
democracy  would  do  of  its  own  accord." 

Then  in  May,  1916,  it  says: 

"There  is  only  one  leaven  which  can  preserve  the  state  and 
the  nation  against  death  dealing  inertia  for  lethargy,  both 
as  to  soul  and  body,  and  that  level  is  a  militarism  of  the 
French  variety." 

This  is  from  November,  1916: 

"Has  the  administration  given  us  the  truth  concerning  con- 
ditions in  Mexico  or  does  it  regard  the  truth  as  too  horrible, 
too  humiliating,  too  dangerous  to  be  made  public?  From 

71 


private  sources  we  learn  of  the  awful  fate  that  has  overtaken 
many  of  our  citizens  who  had  the  temerity  to  make  their 
homes  in  Mexico  and  who  were  unable  or  unwilling  to 
abandon  their  possessions  and  escape  thence  when  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Government  failed  them.  Why  does  not  the 
administration  let  it  be  known  how  many  of  these  men  were 
murdered,  how  many  of  their  wives  and  daughters  outraged? 
The  facts  must  have  been  reported  to  our  officials  in  Mexico 
and  by  them  to  Washington.  Above  all.  why  was  our  Gov- 
ernment unable  or  unwilling  to  protect  its  citizens  as  other 
governments  did  theirs?  We  hear  that  American  property 
losses  in  Mexico  amount  to  hundreds  of  millions.  Are  not 
the  American  people  interested  in  this?  It  is  said  that 
French,  British,  German  and  other  foreign  property  losses  in 
Mexico  have  amounted  up  to  tens  of  millions,  and  it  is 
surmised  that  we,  the  American  nation,  \vill  be  held  account- 
able when  these  nations  are  free  to  see  to  it.  Is  there  noth- 
ing in  this  threatening  danger  that  our  people  should  know? 
Are  they  not  entitled  to  some  warning  regarding  a  condition 
which  might  easily  embroil  us  in  war? 

"To  fulfill  the  requirement  in  its  broad  sense  demands  that 
our  army  and  navy,  to  defend  the  lives  and  property  and 
rights  of  American  citizens  everywhere,  on  land  and  sea. 
An  army  for  defense,  in  its  broad  sense,  should  be  capable 
of  invading  a  foreign  country  and  compelling  respect  for  the 
lives  and  rights  of  American  citizens  wherever  they  may  be 
jeopardized." 

I  would  like  to  refer  to  just  a  paragraph  of  similar 
propaganda  by  The  National  Security  League. 

Q.  Why  was  the  National  Security  League  deemed 
necessary  by  those  responsible  for  its  organization? 

A.  Because  it  seemed  impossible,  except  by  an 
organized  campaign  of  education  on  a  huge  scale  to 
make  the  people  realize  how  deplorable  our  state  of 
unpreparedness  and  the  dangers  that  surrounded  us. 

First,  the  League  has  built  up  an  organization 
of  100,000  members  in  every  state  of  the  union,  with 
nearly  200  organized  branches  in  cities  and  towns, 
each  branch  being  a  center  for  the  dissemination  of 
preparedness  sentiments. 

72 


Second,  it  has  secured  the  co-operation  of  17  Gov- 
ernors of  states  in  appointing  state  committees  on 
national  defense  to  co-operate  with  the  league. 

Third,  it  has  distributed  over  six  million  pieces  of 
preparedness  literature. 

That  illustrates  the  kind  of  material  that  was  being 
issued  and  to  which  I  was  referring  in  Section  2. 

I  would  like,  in  that  connection,  to  read  from  one 
of  Clyde  H.  Tavenner's  speeches,  "The  Navy  League 
Unmasked." 

Q.     Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Congress? 

A.  The  speech  was  delivered  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives on  December  15th,  1915.  Congressman 
Tavenner  makes  the  statement:  "The  Navy  League 
would  appear  to  be  a  little  more  than  a  branch  office 
of  the  house  of  J.  P.  Morgan  &  Company,"  and  then 
he  gives  two  pages  of  Navy  League  connections,  and  I 
read  just  a  few. 

J.  P.  Morgan  was  formerly  treasurer  of  the  Navy 
League  and  is  now  a  director  and  contributor. 

Herbert  L.  Satterlee,  formerly  Assistant  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  Department  and  a  brother-in-law  of  J.  P. 
Morgan  was  one  of  the  incorporators  and  founders  of 
the  Navy  League. 

The  late  J.  P.  Morgan  was  one  of  the  founders  and 
principal  contributors  to  The  Navy  League. 

Edward  T.  Stotesbury,  a  member  of  the  firm  of  J.  P. 
Morgan  &  Company  and  a  director  of  the  Baldwin 
Locomotive  Works  and  of  54  other  corporations  was 
one  of  the  honorary  vice-presidents. 

Robert  Bacon,  formerly  Secretary  of  State  and  part- 
ner of  J.  P.  Morgan  &  Company,  is  a  director  of  the 
Navy  League. 

Henry  C.  Frick,  a  fellow  director  of  J.  P.  Morgan  & 
Company  and  director  of  both  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation  and  the  National  City  Bank  of  New 

73 


York,  is  an  honorary  vice-president. 

Jacob  H.  Scruff,  director  with  J.  P.  Morgan  in  the 
National  City  Bank  of  New  York,  a  contributor,  con- 
tributed $1,000  in  1915  to  The  Navy  League: 

J.  Ogden  Armour,  a  director,  with  J.  P.  Morgan  of 
the  National  City  Bank  of  New  York,  was  one  of  the 
committee,  which  under  the  auspices  of  The  National 
Security  League,  issued  a  statement  certifying  to 
the  patriotism  of  the  Navy  League. 

Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  a  director  of  J.  P.  Morgan  & 
Company  and  the  National  City  Bank,  among  other 
corporations  is  also  one  of  the  vice-presidents. 

And  there  is  another  page  of  about  the  same  kind. 
This  is  merely  repetition. 

And  I  desire  to  refer  again  to  President  Wilson's 
statement,  of  which  I  have  here  an  official  copy  from 
the  White  House,  in  which  he  denounced  those  who 
had  been  trying  to  stir  up  war  between  Mexico  and 
the  United  States — I  have  already  read  that  statement 
and  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  go  into  anything 
further  of  detail. 

In  other  words,  the  preparedness  movement  was  a 
movement  by  big  business,  or  big  business  interests, 
they  were  behind  it  and  were  working  for  it.  and  it  got 
to  such  a  pitch  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
had  to  call  them  down  publicly,  although  he  took  no 
further,  action  in  the  matter  and  I  wrote  Section  2  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  preparedness 
campaign  was  waged  by  big  business  organizations 
and  was  backed  by  big  business  machinery. 

O.  Now  I  presume  you  may  refer  to  the  third 
section. 

A.  I  wrote  the  third  section  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  business  interests,  having  succeeded 
in  stirring  up  public  sentiment  on  preparedness,  be- 
came the  patriots,  the  leading  business  men  who  had 

74 


been  owners  of  the  United  States  resources  and  ma- 
chinery and  economic  life,  became  the  leading  patriots, 
and  that  they  utilized  this  opportunity  to  carry  on  the 
usual  business  activity — of  making  profits. 

I  have  here  a  bulletin  of  March  3rd,  1917,  from  the 
Wall  Street  Digest: 

"Whether  the  end  of  the  war  comes  in  the  near  future  or 
is  delayed  for  a  long  time,  the  United  States  is  definitely 
committed  to  a  preparedness  campaign  that  must  assure  the 
prosperity  of  American  industries  for  a  number  of  years  to 
come.  *  *  * 

"The  severance  of  diplomatic  relations  meant,  whether  or 
not  it  was  followed  by  war,  that  the  United  States  must  make 
ready  for  war  and  that  it  must  make  ready  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment.  Logically,  this  means  that  the  vast  stores 
of  military  supplies  to  be  purchased  by  the  United  States 
Government  would  be  paid  for  in  readily  negotiable  American 
money  and  not  in  promises  to  pay  such  as  had  been  so  largely 
taken  in  exchange  for  the  vast  quantities  of  stores  supplied 
to  the  allied  governments  of  Europe  in  the  past  24  months. 

"These  facts  were  promptly  recognized  by  the  big 
interests  in  Wall  Street  and  those  interests  have  been 
steadily  committed  to  the  constructive  side  of  the  market 
in  recent  weeks,  as  proved  by  the  fact  that  while  the 
nation  has  been  on  the  verge  of  war  with  thousands  of  timid 
holders  of  securities  seeking  to  liquidate  their  holdings,  the 
big  interests  have  been  accumulating,  with  the  net  result  that 
there  has  been  a  general  advance  in  the  active  issues  on  the 
New  York  Stock  Exchange,  and  a  somewhat  smaller  advance 
in  the  stocks  traded  in  on  the  New  York  Curb  Market. 

"The  upward  movement  in  the  price  of  stocks  dates  from 
the  date  that  the  German  Ambassador  at  Washington  was 
handed  his  passports  and  although  there  have  been  slight 
temporary  reactions,  the  movement  has  been  fairly  continu- 
ous from  that  day  to  this. 

"In  addition  to  the  assurance  of  the  prosperity  ahead  for 
American  industry  through  the  placing  of  vast  orders  by 
the  Government  to  be  paid  for  in  American  money,  there 
is  still  another  phase  of  the  situation  that  must  not  be  over- 
looked. The  United  States  is  now  definitely  committed  to 
the  side  of  the  Entente  Allies.  That  makes  the  ultimate 
victory  assured.  There  comes  the  further  certainty  that  they 

75 


will  be  able  to  refund  and  eventually  redeem  their  promises 
to  pay.  Far  sighted  bankers  and  financiers  were  quick  to 
sense  this  situation,  and  they  have  been  active  in  the  stock 
market  during  the  past  two  weeks." 

Q.     What  is  the  date  of  that? 

A.  That  is  March  3,  1917,  one  month  before  we 
entered  the  war. 

That  is  typical  of  a  number  of  publications.  I  have 
here  a  list  of  them  (Indicating). 

I  have  here  a  letter  from  the  banking  house  of 
Henry  Clews  &  Company,  which  is  dated  December 
23rd,  1916,  and  another  October  14th,  1916,  in  which 
they  make  exactly  the  same  point.  In  other  words 
that  was  the  general  sentiment  of  the  Wall  Street 
group. 

Here  is  a  publication  called  "Commerce  &  Finance" 
dated  May  23rd,  1917,  wherein  Mr.  J.  Ogden  Armour 
says: 

"I  consider  the  present  the  most  auspicious  period 
from  the  standpoint  of  national  prosperity  in  my  mem- 
ory." That  characterized  the  same  attitude. 

I  have  here  a  number  of  clippings  which  I  made  at 
that  time.  Here  is  one  from  "The  Toledo  Blade"  of 
May  19th,  1917,  and  a  real  estate  dealer  of  Toledo  says : 

"The  war  will  teach  us  a  very  valuable  lesson,  a  more 
valuable  lesson  than  the  Civil  War  brought.  In  real  estate, 
people  are  buying  carefully,  of  course,  and  this  is  no  more 
than  right,  but  they  have  plenty  of  money  and  are  buying 
in  a  goodly  volume.  From  a  business  standpoint  we  have 
much  to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose  from  this  war." 

Here  is  another  excerpt  or  clipping  from  the  same 
paper  of  May  15th,  1917,  and  this  is  headed:  "War 
Prosperity."  This  is  an  advertisement  by  a  leading 
department  store  in  Toledo. 

"War  Prosperity.  England  is  prosperous,  France 
is  prosperous,  business  in  both  countries  is  better  than 
it  was  before  the  war.  The  war  has  made  work  for 

76 


everybody  and  puts  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  in 
circulation." 

There  is  another  newspaper  advertisement:  "Take 
Canada  as  an  Example"  and  they  show  how  prosper- 
ous Canada  has  been.  This  is  on  the  22nd  of  May, 
1917,  and  they  go  on  and  show  how  prosperous  Canada 
has  been  and  show  how  we  will  be  equally  prosperous. 

Q.     What  do  you  mean, — by  going  into  the  war? 

A.  Yes.  That  general  situation  of  profiteering 
called  for  a  statement  from  Mr.  Wilson.  That  appears 
in  an  official  bulletin  on  July  12th,  1917,  and  this  is 
what  the  statement  on  profiteering  is : 

"We  ought  not  to  put  the  acceptance  of  such  prices —  (for 
necessities)  on  the  ground  of  patriotism.  Patriotism  has 
nothing  to  do  with  profits  in  a  case  like  this.  Patriotism  and 
profits  ought  never,  in  the  present  circumstances  to  be  men- 
tioned together.  Patriotism  leaves  profits  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. In  these  days  of  our  supreme  trial,  when  we  are  send- 
ing hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  young  men  across  the  seas 
to  serve  a  great  cause,  no  true  man  who  stays  behind  to  work 
for  them  and  to  sustain  them  by  his  labor  will  ask  himself 
what  he  is  personally  going  to  make  out  of  that  labor.  No 
true  patriot  will  permit  himself  to  take  toll  of  their  heroism 
in  money,  or  seek  to  grow  rich  by  the  shedding  of  their 
blood.  He  will  give  as  freely  and  with  as  unstained  self- 
sacrifice  as  they.  When  they  are  giving  their  lives  will  he 
not  at  least  give  his  money." 

That  was  the  President's  appeal  to  the  American 
manufacturers  and  miners,  specifically  and  generally 
an  appeal  to  the  profiteers.  It  was  called  for  by  such 
statements  as  I  have  made. 

And  here  is  a  statement  from  the  United  States 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  dated  May  9,  1917,  in  which 
it  accuses  the  food  speculators  not  only  of  profiteering 
but  "I  am  told,"  he  says,  "that  some  of  these  men  are 
actually  in  Washington  today  conducting  a  lobby 
against  the  request  of  President  Wilson  that  Congress 
empower  him  and  his  cabinet  to  take  the  necessary 

77  * 


means  to  mobilize  the  agricultural  resources  of  this 
nation." 

And  then  here  I  have  a  statement  which  I  will  not 
read  of  the  war  profits  made  by  these  same  American 
patriots.  That  is,  the  men  in  The  Navy  League,  the 
men  behind  the  Navy  League,  the  big  men  behind  the 
National  Security  League  had  been  making  about  a 
billion  dollars  a  year  approximately  in  war  profits 
during  the  three  years  before  we  entered  the  war. 

The  point  I  wish  to  make  is  that  on  the  12th  of 
July  the  profiteering  had  got  so  bad  that  the  President 
was  compelled  to  issue  an  appeal  in  which  he  asked 
those  patriots  to  leave  profits  out  of  account  because 
in  spite  of  their  blatant  patriotism  they  had  been 
making  a  huge  profit  before  we  entered  the  war  and 
they  continued  to  make  them  after  we  entered  the  war. 

And  in  this  next  section,  Section  3,  I  show  that  the 
preparedness  group  was  the  same  group  that  was  in 
it,  to  make  war  profits.  The  so-called  patriots  became 
profiteers. 

BY  MR.  STEDMAN: 

Q.  I  think  you  can  turn  to  No.  4.  I  think  it  is  in 
that  where  you  used  the  phrase  "preposterous  phrase 
'armed  neutrality.'  "  I  think  it  is  in  this  publication. 
In  what  sense  did  you  mean  "that  preposterous 
phrase"  ? 

A.     Why,  in  the  first  place, 

Q.  Is  that  a  phrase  used  by  the  President?  It  was, 
was  it  not? 

A.  "Armed  neutrality" — in  the  first  place  there 
practically  is  no  such  thing  as  "armed  neutrality." 
There  you  are  facing  this  situation,  that  either  you 
are  neutral  in  thought  and  in  act,  as  Mr.  Wilson  asked 
us  to  be  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  or  else  you  go  in 
and  become  an  ally  of  one  side  or  the  other.  When 
this  phrase  was  used  we  were  supplying  arms  and 

78 


ammunitions  and  food  and  other  contraband  and  non- 
contraband  to  the  allied  governments  and  we  were  not 
neutral  in  any  extent  in  the  matter  except  on  the 
merest  technicality.  And  as  Mr.  La  Follette  pointed 
out  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate : 

"That  armed  neutrality  for  which  the  President 
asked  would  lead  inevitably  to  war,"  and  in  his  speech 
on  the  2nd  of  April,  Mr.  Wilson  admitted  that  when 
he  said  "armed  neutrality  is  ineffectual  in  fact  at  best. 
It  is  likely  only  to  produce  what  it  was  meant  to  pre- 
vent." And  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  did  produce  what  it 
was  meant  to  prevent.  It  was  preposterous  in  the 
sense  of  its  being  an  unreality. 

Q.     Referring  now  to  Section  5:    "The  Traitors?" 

A.  Section  5  is  the  reverse  of  Section  3.  Section  3 
is  headed  "The  Patriots"  and  Section  5  is  headed  "The 
Traitors,"  and  in  both  instances  "patriots"  and  "trait- 
ors" are  quoted  in  the  section. 

The  patriots,  as  I  tried  to  point  out,  were  the  same 
group  that  had  engineered  the  preparedness  campaign 
and  engineered  it  as  they  engineered  everything — for 
profit.  Now  in  Section  5  I  am  calling  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  there  were  people  among  the  people  in 
the  United  States  who  held  the  opposite  view,  a  num- 
ber of  them  who  expressed  it,  and  several  of  them  in 
Congress  who  took  issue  with  the  majority  of  Con- 
gress and  with  the  President  on  this  whole  question. 

Q.     That  is,  opposed  to  the  entrance  into  the  war? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  opposing  entering  into  the  war. 

Q.     And  armed  neutrality? 

A.  And  among  them  were  the  men  who  had  stood 
out  conspicuously  for  years,  as  the  champions  of  the 
people's  rights,  and  they  were  dubbed  "traitors"  by 
the  newspapers  and  by  The  Security  League  and  by 
the  Defense  Society  and  by  The  Navy  League  and 
other  organizations  of  that  type  simply  because  they 

79 


took  a  point  of  view  opposite  to  our  entrance  into  the 
war. 

Q.     Senator  Norris  among  those? 

A.     Senator  Norris  was  one  of  those. 

Q.     Recently  re-elected  a  Senator? 

A.  Yes.  Of  the  33  Congressmen  that  took  that 
stand,  25  were  re-elected. 

Q.     Thirty-three  senators? 

A.     And  representatives. 

Q.  And  this  paragraph  is  the  exposition  of  their 
views  and  your  title  is  the  title  which  was  applied  to 
them  by  the  press  largely,  rather  than  their  own 
constituents? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  applied  to  them  by  the  press 
and  by  the  spokesmen  of  the  other  side. 

Q.     Referring  to  Section  6,  the  second  division. 

A.  That  section  refers  to  the  actual  process  of  our 
going  into  the  war.  I  call  your  attention  in  that  sec- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  situation  of  the  Allies  was 
quite  serious.  On  the  22nd  of  July,  1916,  the  banking 
house  of  Henry  Clews  £  Company,  in  their  circular, 
stated  that  "the  most  influential  factor  in  the  security 
markets  at  the  present  is  the  war  financing  of  the 
Allies.  A  new  $100,000,000  French  loan  has  been  suc- 
cessfully launched  through  a  specially  organized  cor- 
poration. It  is  expected  to  be  followed  by  a  huge 
British  war  credit.  How  long  Great  Britain  will  be 
able  to  stand  this  terrific  strain  no  one  knows,  but  her 
resources  are  so  vast  that  the  end  is  by  no  means  yet 
in  sight." 

Now,  as  I  state,  in  this  section,  nobody  could  tell 
how  serious  or  critical  the  situation  of  the  Allies  was : 
but  at  that  time  there  was  a  statement  made  in  the 
British  House  of  Parliament,  I  think  by  Bonar  Law, 
that  America  entered  the  war  when  allied  credit  was 
exhausted  and  certainly  the  economic  situation  of  the 

80 


Allies  was  extreme,  being  subjected  as  it  was  to  the 
effect  of  the  submarine  blockade. 

Another  point  I  tried  to  make  in  this  connection 
was  that  the  American  people  had  voted  Mr.  Wilson 
in  because  he  had  "kept  the  faith  of  neutrality." 

I  have  an  advertisment  here  from  the  "Pittsburgh 
Post"  of  November  6th,  1916,  headed  "Political  Ad- 
vertisement," and  says : 

"Are  you  working,  not  fighting,  alive  and  happy, 
not  cannon  fodder.  Wilson  and  peace  with  honor  or 
Hughes  with  Roosevelt  and  war." 

And  then  they  have  some  other  later  ones  that 
appear : 

"If  you  want  war,  vote  for  Hughes;  if  you  want 
peace  with  honor  and  continued  prosperity,  vote  for 
Wilson." 

That  was  the  day  before  election.  The  people  of 
the  country  very  clearly  answered  to  that  mandate  as 
will  be  shown  by  the  following  figures.  In  the  election 
of  1916  Mr.  Wilson  got  a  plurality  in  California  of 
3,773.  In  the  same  state  the  Republican  Governor  got 
296,815.  In  Kansas  Mr.  Wilson  got  36,930  plurality. 
In  the  same  state  the  Republican  Governor  got  152,482. 
In  Minnesota  Mr.  Hughes  got  392  plurality  but  the 
Republican  Governor  got  153,729. 

In  other  words,  it  is  pretty  clear  that  the  people 
sent  Mr.  Wilson  back  into  office  because  he  "kept  the 
faith  of  neutrality"  and  because  he  "kept  us  out  of 
war,"  and  the  billboards  were  covered  at  that  time 
with  the  statement  that  he  had  "kept  us  out  of  war." 
And  the  people  sent  him  back,  and  then  next  April  we 
went  into  the  war. 

Q.  May  I  direct  your  attention,  perhaps,  to  another 
fact:  In  view  of  the  introduction  against  the  Rand 
School  of  the  "St.  Louis  War  Program  Proclamation" 
which  is  in  the  book  which  has  been  submitted  here, 

81 


I  will  ask  you  this,  Mr.  Nearing:  Isn't  it  a  fact  that 
the  socialist  vote  went  down  tremendously,  due  to  the 
socialists  voting  for  President  Wilson? 

A.  If  I  remember  it,  it  fell  off  from  a  million  to 
600,000,  and  that  would  have  been  practically  enough 
to  have  elected  Mr.  Wilson. 

MR.  BARNES:     Does  Mr.  Nearing  say 

MR.  STEDMAN :    That  is  where  socialism  got  bit. 

MR.  BARNES:  Does  this  witness  claim  to  have 
knowledge  that  the  falling  off  of  the  socialist  vote 
was  due  to  that? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  am  stating  this  now,  being 
that  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  and  the  figures  show  it  in 
the  books  which  you  have  put  in  evidence  here. 

MR.  BARNES :  It  is  in  the  book  that  we  offered 
that  the  Socialist  Party  vote  fell  off,  it  is  not  in  the 
book  that  it  fell  off  due  to  Mr.  Wilson  or  to  any  other 
candidate. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Everyone  in  the  party  knows  it, 
knew  it  at  the  time  and  knows  it  now. 

MR.  BARNES :  If  you  have  any  witnesses  to  prove 
that  I  would  be  glad  to  have  you  call  them. 

THE  COURT :  I  think  it  is  utterly  immaterial  to 
the  controversy  we  have  here  one  way  or  the  other. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  It  is  not  in  controversy  here, 
but  I  thought  that  you  would  agree  to  that,  Mr. 
Barnes,  and  I  was  simply  calling  attention  to  it ;  I  was 
not  trying  to  prove  it. 

A.  There  is  one  other  point  that  I  would  like  to 
make  in  connection  with  this  section,  and  that  is  the 
point  regarding  the  Council  of  National  Defense.  And 
that  illustrates  as  well  as  anything  I  know  of,  the  way 
in  which  a  government  under  a  capitalistic  society  is 
compelled  to  depend  upon  the  people  there  to  do  the 
work.  In  the  United  States  about  nine-tenths  of  the 
people  are  working  people.  All  the  professional  peo- 

82 


pie,  all  the  managers,  officials  and  heads  of  industry, 
all  of  them  together,  do  not  make  up  more  than  one- 
tenth  of  the  population.  In  spite  of  that  fact,  the 
Council  of  National  Defense  contains  the  names,  al- 
most exclusively,  of  business  men. 

I  called  attention  particularly  in  the  pamphlet  to 
the  committee  on  oil  and  the  committee  on  steel  and 
the  like. 

Q.  I  think  there  is  one  exception,  the  committee  on 
mines  and  mining? 

A.     I  didn't  remember  that. 

Q.  I  didn't  know  whether  you  have  that  in  that 
book  or  not,  I  call  your  attention  to  it  that  that  is  one 
exception,  and  on  it  there  were  also  a  number  of 
experts. 

MR.  BARNES :    A  large  percentage. 

MR.  STEDMAN:    A  large  percentage,  yes. 

A.  (continuing).  In  their  committees  they  were 
forced  to  call  on  business  men  exclusively,  so  that  the 
active  work  of  carrying  on  the  war  business  was 
thrown  right  into  the  hands  of  the  same  people  that 
had,  during  the  past,  managed  business.  Of  necessity, 
it  had  to  be  so,  because  there  was  nobody  else  who 
knew  the  game. 

Q.  And  you  are  citing  that,  are  you,  to  give  that 
as  a  matter  of  information  and  not  as  a  matter  of 
criticism? 

A.     That  is  unavoidable.    It  is  our  theory 

Q.  You  are  not  criticising  that  for  the  method  of 
doing  that  way,  I  suppose? 

A.  I  simply  use  it  as  an  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  the  machinery  of  society  must  fall  back  on  the 
business  mechanics. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  am  referring  to  and  is  in  other 
words  an  explanation  of  the  system  that  is  obliged  to 
be  used.  Now  you  refer  to  Number  7,  the  Liberty 

83 


Loan? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  spoke  down  there  of  two  subjects,  first  of 
the  financing  of  the  war  and  its  necessity? 

A.  In  the  first  place  the  Liberty  Loan  in  my  judg- 
ment was  a — or  rather  the  method  of  the  loan,  the 
way  it  was  affected,  in  my  judgment  was  the  wrong 
way  of  financing  the  war.  At  that  time,  along  with 
308  other  professors  of  economics,  I  signed  a  memorial 
to  Congress  and  this  is  what  we  said : 

"The  taxation  policy  is  practicable  because  the  cur- 
rent income  of  the  people,  in  any  case,  must  pay  the 
war  expenditures.  By  every  bond  issue  the  Govern- 
ment increases  the  prices  it  must  pay  and  that  in- 
creases the  need  of  more  bonds.  If  conscription  of 
men  is  right,  conscription  of  income  is  more  so." 

At  that  time  that  was  the  opinion  of  practically  all 
of  the  leading  economists  of  the  country  and  was 
recognized  as  such. 

Q.  Will  you  name  just  a  few  of  the  308,  just  gen- 
erally, from  one  or  two  different  universities? 

A.  I  don't  want  to  hit  anybody  in  particular,  be- 
cause it  is  not  the  popular  side  now. 

Q.  All  right,  Mr.  Nearing,  their  minds  have  changed 
since  then — I  mean  their  expressions  of  their  minds 
have  changed  since  then. 

A.  These  men  represented  all  of  the  universities  of 
the  United  States. 

Q.  I  say  the  doctors'  minds  or  their  expressions 
have  changed  since  then? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     And  that  is  the  reason  for  not  mentioning  them? 

A.  If  I  could  mention  them  all,  there  would  be 
nothing  invidious  about  it,  but  if  I  might  name  one  or 
two  it  would  look  bad  for  them.  I  don't  want  to  take 
the  time  to  name  the  308  names. 

84 


Q.     If  Mr.  Barnes  wants  to  he  can  bring  that  out. 

A.  That  time  it  was  a  generally  recognized  point 
of  view,  at  that  time,  I  say,  that  the  war  should  be 
financed  out  of  income  and  not  by  purchasing  bonds 
or  by  the  issuing  of  bonds. 

Q.     What  date  was  that? 

A.  Well,  that  was  in  the  Spring  and  Summer.  The 
President  in  his  message  on  the  6th  of  April,  said : 
"The  war  should  be  financed  as  largely  as  possible  by 
the  current  income."  That  is  the  theory  on  which  the 
economists  of  the  country  were  united  at  that  time. 
We  believed  that  it  was  better  to  pay  as  you  go  than 
it  was  to  pay  your  bills  by  borrowing  and  laying  up 
debts  for  another  day.  To  pay  as  you  go,  that  policy 
is  a  safer  business  policy  and  a  saner  business  policy, 
and  we  thought  it  was  a  saner  national  policy. 

Q.  They  were  in  line  with  what  they  understood 
the  President's  suggestion  to  be? 

A.  He  being  one  of  the  college  fraternity,  naturally 
had  that  point  of  view.  Then  the  other  factor  that 
entered  in  there,  in  that  same  connection,  was  the 
factor  expressed  in  the  editorial  that  I  have  here  from 
one  of  the  Scripps-McRea  papers  of  May  26th,  1916,  in 
the  Public  of  October  22nd,  1915.  The  theory  was  that 
if  you  bond  at  the  present  time  you  bind  the  future. 

The  attitude,  however,  taken  by  Congress  is  well 
illustrated  in  this  Revenue  Bill — this  is  the  bill  as  it 
was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means 
on  May  9th,  1917.  On  page  2  they  say: 

"Your  Committee  believes  that  the  American  people  were 
never  in  a  more  favorable  condition  to  pay  a  reasonable 
amount  of  taxes  for  war  purposes  in  addition  to  those  for 
normal  purposes  than  at  the  present  time.  Your  Committee 
has  endeavored  to  distribute  equitably  this  division  of  taxa- 
tion and  hope  to  leave  the  proposed  tax  so  as  to  necessitate 
as  little  readjustment  and  disturbance  of  the  business  as 
possible." 

85 


And  the  business  interests  took  that  point  of  view 
that  the  war  should  be  financed  by  bonds  just  as  that 
had  been  the  same  point  of  view  in  Europe. 

Then  we  took  to  the  issuing  of  those  bonds,  and  that 
is  the  particular  point  that  I  bring  out  in  this  section. 
The  business  interests  used  the  opportunity  to  get  a 
kind  of  a  grip  on  their  employees  that  they  had  never 
had  before.  Up  to  that  time  they  had  never  been  placed 
in  a  position  where  the  employers  could  dictate  to  their 
employees  how  they  should  spend  their  income.  Form- 
erly they  paid  them  their  salary,  their  money  for  their 
labor  and  they  had  no  further  control  of  it.  Under 
the  Liberty  Loan  scheme,  it  became  possible  for  the 
employer  practically  to  compel  his  employees  to  buy 
bonds,  to  be  "patriotic"  as  he  said,  and  he  became  the 
center  of  the  whole  scheme,  of  the  patriotism  and  the 
criterion  as  to  the  patriotism  and  that  is  the  reason 
that  I  say  there  that  this  Liberty  Loan,  which  is  the 
first  Liberty  Loan — did  more  to  bulwark  the  position 
of  Big  Business  as  against  the  employee  in  their 
business,  than  will  ever  be  done  for  liberty  in  Europe, 
because  of  the  fact  of  the  employer  being  placed  in  a 
position  where  he  could  dictate  to  the  employee  re- 
garding the  spending  of  his  own  income. 

And  I  know  of  a  number  of  illustrations, — I  gave 
several  here,  of  men  and  women  who  were  compelled 
to  buy  Liberty  Bonds  whether  they  wanted  to  or 
whether  they  were  able  to. 

Q.     Now,  refer  to  No.  8. 

A.     That  is  the  section  on  conscription? 

Q.    Yes. 

A.  I  should  like  to  refer  in  that  connection  first  to 
a  speech  made  by  Daniel  Webster  on  the  9th  of  De- 
cember, 1814.  He  starts  out  his  speech  by  saying  that 
this  is  a  departure  from  the  American  traditions.  He 
says: 

86 


"Let  us  examine  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  power  which 
is  assumed  by  the  various  military  measures  before  us.  In 
the  present  want  of  men  and  money,  the  secretary  of  war 
has  proposed  to  Congress  a  military  conscription. 

"For  the  conquest  of  Canada,  the  people  will  not  enlist 
and  if  they  would  the  treasury  is  exhausted  and  they  could 
not  pay.  Conscription  is  chosen  as  the  most  promising  in- 
strument both  of  overcoming  the  reluctance  to  the  service 
and  of  subduing  the  difficulties  which  arise  from  the  deficien- 
cies of  the  exchequer." 

"Is  this,"  he  said,  "consistent  with  the  character  of  a  free 
Government?  Is  this  civil  liberty?  Is  this  the  real  character 
of  our  Constitution?  No,  sir,  indeed  it  is  not.  The  Constitu- 
tion is  libelled,  foully  libelled,  the  people  of  this  country  has 
not  established  for  them  such  a  fabric  of  despotism.  The 
conspirators  and  the  others  before  us  act  on  the  opposite 
principle.  It  is  their  task  to  raise  arbitrary  powers  by  con- 
scription out  of  a  plain  written  charter  of  national  liberty. 
It  Is  their  pleasing  duty  to  free  us  of  the  delusion,  which  we 
have  fondly  cherished  that  we  are  the  subjects  of  a  mild, 
free  and  limited  Government,  and  to  demonstrate  by  a  regu- 
lar chain  of  premises  and  conclusions  that  Government  pos- 
sesses over  us  a  power  more  tyrannical,  more  arbitrary, 
more  dangerous,  more  allied  to  blood  and  murder,  more  full 
of  every  form  of  mischief,  more  productive  of  every  sort 
of  misery  than  has  been  exercised  by  any  civilized  govern- 
ment with  one  exception  in  modern  times." 

And  then  he  says: 

"The  Secretary  of  War  has  favored  us  with  an  argument 
on  the  constitutionality  of  this  power.  If  the  Secretary  of 
War  has  proved  the  right  of  Congress  to  enact  a  law  enforc- 
ing a  draft  of  men  out  of  the  militia  into  the  regular  army, 
he  will,  at  any  time,  be  able  to  prove  quite  as  clearly  that 
Congress  has  power  to  create  a  dictator.  The  arguments 
that  have  helped  him  in  one  case  will  equally  help  him  in 
the  other. 

"A  free  Government,  with  arbitrary  means  to  administer 
it,  is  a  contradiction;  a  free  government,  without  adequate 
provisions  for  personal  security,  is  an  absurdity;  a  free  gov- 
ernment with  an  uncontrolled  power  of  military  conscrip- 
tion, is  a  solecism,  at  once  the  most  ridiculous  and  abomin- 
able that  ever  entered  into  the  head  of  man." 

87 


And  then  he  ends  up  with  a  very  brilliant  appeal  to 
the  Congress  in  which  he  says  that  if  they  enforce 
conscription,  it  will  be  necessary  for  him  to  go  back 
and  urge  his  constituents  not  to  acknowledge  the  thing 
or  submit  to  the  draft. 

At  the  same  time  I  collected  a  speech  of  the  Honor- 
able George  Huddleston  of  Alabama,  a  member  of 
Congress,  dated  January  10th,  1917,  on  a  subject  en- 
titled "Conscription  is  Undemocratic";  and  a  speech 
by  Champ  Clark  of  Missouri,  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

Q.  By  the  way,  do  you  recall  if  it  was  in  that 
speech  or  at  that  time,  his  expression  was  given  in 
which  he  compared  the  conscript  with  the  convict?  I 
don't  mean  in  disparagement  of  him  but  in  emphasiz- 
ing the  character  of  the  service  imposed. 

A.  "In  the  estimation  of  a  Missourian  there  is  no 
appreciable  line  of  difference  between  a  conscript  and 
a  convict."  This  is  from  the  speech  by  Champ  Clark. 

Q.  Was  he  the  man  who  was  a  candidate  for  the 
presidency  before  the  Democratic  Convention  in  Bal- 
timore? 

A.  Yes.  Here  is  the  speech  that  Representative 
Sherwood  delivered,  that  I  will  not  read  to  you,  but 
this  is  the  same  Isaac  R.  Sherwood  of  Ohio  who  was 
in  42  battles  of  the  Civil  War  and  is  the  only  fighting 
general  I  believe  that  is  still  alive,  and  he  took  the 
position  of  being  absolutely  opposed  to  conscription. 

Q.  Was  he  re-elected  or  has  he  been  re-elected 
since  then? 

A.  He  has  been  re-elected  since  then,  yes.  And 
the  Honorable  William  E.  Mason  took  the  same  po- 
sition. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  that  is  the  same 
Mr.  William  E.  Mason  who  is  now  Congressman  at 
large  for  Illinois? 


A.     Yes. 

Q.     Recently  re-elected? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     That  is  last  Fall? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Previously  a  United  States  Senator  and  has 
three  or  four  sons  who  have  volunteered  in  the  army, 
do  you  know  that,  are  you  familiar  with  that? 

A.  Yes.  In  other  words,  at  that  time,  many  of  the 
most  prominent  members  in  Congress  took  exactly  the 
same  position  that  I  did  on  the  conscription  law.  They 
were  opposed  to  the  conscription  law.  They  did  not 
believe  it  belonged  in  the  United  States  and  they  were 
desperately  in  earnest  and  violent  in  their  opposition 
to  it. 

THE  COURT:  They  took  that  position  in  the 
course  of  the  debate? 

THE  WITNESS :    Yes. 

Senator  Mason  has  taken  the  position  since  then 
and  that  only  emphasizes  the  more  the  fact  that  the 
things  he  said  he  thoroughly  believed  in.  Not  only,  if 
your  Honor  please,  did  he  take  opportunity  to  em- 
phasize his  views  since  then,  but  Senator  Mason  out- 
side of  Congress  and  in  public  assemblies  and  meetings 
has  done  the  same.  And  to  show  another  fact,  that 
Congress,  or  the  powers  that  be,  were  not  exactly 
satisfied  with  the  law,  the  authorities  required  soldiers 
as  a  general  rule  to  sign  a  waiver  before  being  deported 
for  foreign  service. 

THE  COURT :  That  doesn't  prove  anything  at  all. 
Senator  Mason  could  do  what  he  pleased. 

MR.  STEDMAN :    That  is  true. 

THE  COURT :  The  point  of  the  thing  is  that  all 
these  references  as  I  understand,  are  here  as  to  de- 
bates in  Congress  and  occurred  before  the  passage  of 
the  measure,  isn't  that  so? 

89 


MR.  STEDMAN:    Yes. 

THE  COURT:  Very  well.  Now  the  article  was 
written  after  that  act  had  become  a  law,  was  it  not? 

MR.  STEDMAN :    That  is  correct. 

A.  At  the  same  time  the  conscription  was  neces- 
sary, however  undesirable  it  might  be. 

I  have  in  my  hand  here  a  statement  of  the  enlist- 
ments for  the  year  1916-1917.  It  is  a  table  showing 
the  number  of  enlistments  and  re-enlistments  monthly 
in  the  line  of  the  army. 

MR.  BARNES:    What  date,  please? 

THE  COURT:  Let  us  get  the  exact  date,  1916- 
1917,  did  you  say? 

THE  WITNESS:    Yes. 

(Continuing)  The  United  States  entered  the  war 
in  April,  1917.  In  March,  1917,  6,000  enlistments. 
April,  29,027;  in  May,  39,589;  in  June,  31,436.  In 
other  words,  even  after  the  President's  appeal  which 
he  made  immediately  following  the  declaration  of  war, 
even  after  the  President's  appeal,  enlistments  were 
coming  in  only  at  the  rate  of  about  30,000  a  month  or 
360,000  a  year.  So  that  it  was  quite  evident  at  that 
time  that  through  enlistment  it  would  be  impossible  in 
a  reasonable  time  to  raise  an  army  adequate  to  the 
carrying  on  of  the  war.  Therefore,  as  I  say,  conscrip- 
tion became  necessary,  however  uncomfortable  it 
might  be  to  some  of  the  Americans. 

However,  if  I  might  answer  his  Honor's  question, 
my  own  opinion  about  conscription  was  not  altered 
by  the  passage  of  the  law.  I  still  felt  about  conscrip- 
tion as  I  did  before  the  passage  of  the  law  and  that  is 
the  reason  I  wrote  this  pamphlet  as  I  did. 

Q.  That  section  there  deals  with  the  history  of  the 
passage  of  the  act? 

A.  Yes.  I  made  the  point  here  that  three  things 
were  necessary  for  the  carrying  but  of  this  war  in  the 

90 


United  States: 

Money,  men  and  censorship,  and  that  the  adminis- 
tration could  not  carry  on  a  war  withput  money,  men 
and  censorship.  I  talked  about  the  matter  of  the 
money,  in  the  Liberty  Loan,  and  I  talked  about  the 
getting  of  the  men  by  conscription,  and  now  as  to 
censorship,  that  will  be  taken  up  as  indicated  in  the 
next  section. 

Q.  There  was  an  agitation  for  a  repeal  of  the  con- 
scription law  after  it  was  adopted,  was  there  not? 

A.     There  was  agitation  for  the  repeal  of  the  law. 

Q.  The  next  you  have  is  No.  9,  Censorship.  By 
the  way,  referring  there  to  paragraph  8,  that  is  the 
prior  one,  did  you  intend  at  that  time  to  cause  or 
attempt  to  cause  insubordination  or  disloyalty  or  re- 
fusal of  duty  within  the  military  and  naval  forces  or 
service  of  the  United  States? 

A.  I  did  not,  I  wanted  the  American  people  to 
know 

Q.  I  say,  just  a  moment,  just  a  second,  I  have 
another  question :  Did  you  desire  to  obstruct  the  re- 
cruiting and  enlistment  service  of  the  United  States 
to  the  injury  of  the  service  of  the  United  States? 

A.  I  did  not,  I  did  not  intend  to  do  so.  I  wanted 
the  American  people  to  understand  what  was  going 
on. 

Q.     As  you  understood  it? 

A.  As  I  understood  it.  Now  referring  to  No.  9,  as 
I  said  a  moment  ago,  there  were  three  things  necessary 
for  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  war;  money,  men 
and  censorship ;  and  I  presented  in  these  sections  these 
three  matters. 

It  has  been  the  attitude  of  the  plutocrat  for  a  long 
time  that  we  were  suffering  from  an  overdose  of  de- 
mocracy in  the  United  States :  Too  much  free  speech 
and  too  much  free  press,  and  this  war  opening,  gave 

91 


them  an  opportunity  to  indict  and  convict  labor  agi- 
tators and  break  up  socialist  and  other  radical  meet- 
ings, including  meetings  of  the  Non-Partisan  League, 
which  was  an  avowedly  patriotic  organization.  In 
other  words,  it  gave  the  plutocracy  a  chance  to  put  a 
gag  on  the  kind  of  expression  which  would  keep  the 
American  democracy  informed  as  to  what  was  going 
on. 

O.  On  the  substantive  offenses  now — it  is  under 
Section  3,  the  substantive  offenses — you  are  familiar 
also  with  the  fact  that  a  postmaster  general  or  a  mail 
clerk,  or  other  postmaster,  according  to  the  determina- 
tion in  that  section,  may  be  able  to  decide  as  to  the 
mailability  of  certain  mail  matter,  that  is  printed  or 
written  matter,  and  decide  that  it  is  against  this  sec- 
tion and  stop  its  going  through  the  mail  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  When  you  mention  the  suppression  of  various 
papers  here  did  you  know  under  what  provision  of  the 
law  they  were  suppressed? 

A.  I  understood  that  they  were  suppressed  under 
the  provision  which  gives  the  postmaster  a  right  to 
declare  any  particular  publication  non-mailable. 

Q.  That  is  under  the  same  act  that  this  case  is 
under? 

A.     No,  a  later  section  of  the  same  act. 

Q.  You  have  mentioned  some  socialist  papers  here 
and  then  you  have  mentioned  some  which  by  the  title 
would  not  indicate  their  general  character.  Do  you 
know  whether  "The  Rebel"  of  Texas  was  a  socialist 
paper  or  not? 

A.     I  believe  it  was  an  agricultural  paper. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  others  than  those  mentioned 
here;  do  you  recall  any  others? 

A.     There  were  between  75  and  100  in  all,  I  think. 

Q.     Do  you  recall   the  names  of  them  or  of  any 

92 


others? 

A.  There  was  "The  Truth"  of  Duluth,  that  was 
suppressed.  It  was  a  labor  paper. 

Q.     And  the  St.  Louis  "Labor,"  do  you  recall  it? 

A.  The  St.  Louis  "Labor"  I  think,  also,  was  sup- 
pressed. I  don't  remember  off-hand  any  others  that 
were  suppressed  before  the  pamphlet  was  written.  I 
know  that  there  are  others  that  have  been  suppressed 
since. 

Q.  Anything  further  you  wish  to  add  about  Sec- 
tion 9? 

A.  Except  to  comment  on  the  fact  that  at  this  time 
public  meetings  were  very  generally  broken  up.  Free 
speech  was  quite  generally  denied,  and  the  freedom  of 
the  press  was  very  seriously  curtailed.  The  Espionage 
Act,  as  it  relates  to  the  freedom  of  the  press,  was  very 
drastic,  more  drastic  I  believe  than  that  of  any  other 
nations. 

MR.  BARNES:  I  think  you  are  getting  a  little 
beyond  your  depth  there. 

MR.  STEDMAN:     Oh,  no.  1  wouldn't  say  that. 

MR.  BARNES :    Oh,  yes  you  are. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  Not  beyond  the  depth,  but  per- 
haps beyond  the  technical  range. 

A.  Might  I  say  that  in  other  nations  the  suppres- 
sion is  merely  of  a  part  of  the  papers? 

MR.  BARNES:  You  could  say  that  that  is  your 
understanding. 

THE  WITNESS :    I  have  seen  the  papers. 

MR.  BARNES :  Have  you  knowledge  of  all  of  the 
laws? 

THE  WITNESS :  No,  I  have  not,  but  I  have  seen 
the  papers  that  have  been  given  to  the  public  for 
public  information. 

y.     They  were  simply  striking  out  parts? 

A.     Taking  out  parts. 

93 


Q.     While  papers  in  this  country 

A.     Were  suppressed,  the  whole  publication. 

Q.  The  whole  paper  was  closed  to  the  mails,  that 
is  the  entire  mailing  privilege  was  cancelled? 

MR.  BARNES :    That  is  not  true,  Mr.  Stedman. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  That  is  not  correct?  I  think  it 
is  quite  correct. 

MR.  BARNES:  You  and  I  differ  as  to  the  law. 
Why  ask  the  witness  to  tell  us  what  the  law  is? 

Q.  Mr.  Nearing,  referring  to  No.  11,  I  think  you 
will  find  that  generally  deals  with  the  theories  that 
you  have  explained  in  some  of  the  others,  but  perhaps 
not? 

A.  I  might  say,  Mr.  Stedman,  that  I  don't  think 
there  is  anything  new  in  any  of  these  last  three 
sections. 

Q.  I  want  to  take  up  "The  Menace  of  Militarism." 
I  call  your  attention  to  "The  Menace  of  Militarism" 
and  particularly  to  the  fourth  section,  only  a  portion 
of  which  was  read  by  Mr.  Barnes,  and  confine  your- 
self to  those  portions  of  it  that  were  offered. 

MR.  BARNES :  I  didn't  think  that  I  read  any  of 
"The  Menace  of  Militarism." 

MR.  STEDMAN :    You  offered  it  in  evidence. 

MR.  BARNES :  There  is  hardly  anything  in  it  that 
is  any  different. 

MR.  STEDMAN  :  If  you  want  it  out  why  all  right, 
I  am  willing. 

MR.  BARNES :  It  is  all  about  on  the  same  general 
line. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  If  I  could  know  what  counsel 
is  referring  to  or  is  going  to  refer  to,  I  could  have  the 
witness  simply  refer  to  that,  if  he  is  not  going  to  use 
it  why  I  wouldn't  spend  any  time  on  it.  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  omit  the  paper  entirely  without  any 
explanation  of  it. 

94 


MR.  BARNES  :  The  chances  are  that  I  won't  prob- 
ably refer  to  it  in  my  closing  address. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  If  you  will  give  me  that  assur- 
ance, I  won't  go  into  it. 

MR.  BARNES:  I  don't  know  what  I  might  do 
when  I  come  to  summing  up. 

Q.     You  have  that  paper  there? 

A.  Yes.  Might  I  call  your  attention  in  the  first 
place  to  the  quotations  on  the  front? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.  I  have  here  a  series  of  five  quotations  which 
are  used  on  the  front  page  of  "The  Menace  of  Mili- 
tarism." 

"I  have  come  to  have  a  great  and  wholesome  respect 
for  the  facts."  That  is  Woodrow  Wilson,  January 
27th,  1917. 

"If  there  is  one  thing  that  we  love  more  deeply  than 
another  in  the  United  States,  it  is  that  every  man 
should  have  the  privilege  unmolested  and  uncriticised, 
to  utter  the  real  convictions  of  his  mind."  Woodrow 
Wilson,  January  29th,  1916. 

Q.  You  might  state  the  place  as  the  Soldiers' 
Memorial  Hall,  Pittsburgh. 

A.     The  Soldiers'  Memorial  Hall,  Pittsburgh. 

"I  believe  that  the  weakness  of  American  character 
is  that  there  are  so  few  growlers  and  kickers  amongst 
us."  Woodrow  Wilson  in  School  Review,  Volume 
7,  page  604. 

"One  thing  this  country  never  will  endure  is  a  sys- 
tem than  can  be  called  militarism."  Woodrow  Wilson 
at  the  Waldorf  Astoria,  New  York,  January  27th,  1917. 

"We  have  forgotten  the  very  principle  of  our  origin 
if  we  have  forgotten  how  to  object,  how  to  resist,  how 
to  agitate,  how  to  pull  down  and  build  up,  even  to  the 
extent  of  revolutionary  practices  if  it  be  necessary  to 
readjust  matters."  Woodrow  Wilson  in  School 

95 


Review,  Volume  7,  page  604. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  don't  know  anything  that  can 
be  worse  than  that. 

MR.  BARNES:  That  only  illustrates  the  old 
maxim  that  the  devil  can  cite  the  scriptures  to  his  own 
purposes. 

O.     Now  on  the  interior  of  that  page. 

A.  There  are  six  definitions  of  militarism.  My 
own  definition  is  that: 

"Militarism  is  the  sway  of  might,  organized  for 
destruction.  The  militarist  applauds  the  martial  vir- 
tues, urges  military  preparedness  and  military  training, 
glorifies  war,  defies  victory;  preaches  that  right  must 
depend  upon  might,  and  thus  makes  the  war-man  a 
greater  benefactor  to  his  race  than  a  peace-man." 

Is  it  necessary  to  do  any  more  than  to  refer  to  the 
sections  here? 

Q.  No,  unless  you  have  something  particular  in 
mind,  I  want  you  to  go  to  No.  4,  because  in  that  you 
open  with  the  following: 

''They  lied  to  us !  Conscientiously,  deliberately, 
with  premeditation  and  malice  aforethought,  they  lied 
to  us!  The  shepherds  of  the  flock,  the  bishops  of 
men's  souls,  the  learned  ones,  the  trusted  ones — "  that 
is  the  part  that  I  refer  to.  Have  you  any  explanation 
to  make  in  regard  to  that? 

A.     Do  you  wish  me  to  read  that  section? 

Q.  Well,  I  don't  know.  This  is  offered  in  evidence 
of  course  and  it  depends  somewhat  upon  how  long  it 
is. 

A.     It  is  pretty  long. 

Q.  Just  one  portion  of  it,  what  I  have  reference 
to  particularly  is,  in  stating  "They  lied  to  us."  You 
have  stated,  I  believe,  that  there  are  different  motives 
in  the  war  as  you  understood  it. 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

96 


Q.  And  those  which  regarded,  as  you  have  men- 
tioned heretofore,  as  unavoidable,  and  others  that  re- 
garded it  purely  from  the  commercial  standpoint.  Of 
course  even  then  it  was  perhaps  necessary.  With  that 
in  mind,  do  you  remember  what  you  did  have  in  mind  ? 

A.  This  passage  deals  particularly  with  the  news- 
papers. On  pages  18  and  19,  I  have  the  quotations 
from  the  Congressional  Record  of  February  9th,  1917, 
a  speech  by  Mr.  Galloway  of  Texas,  in  which  he 
charges  that  the  American  newspapers  were  deliber- 
ately subsidized  in  order  to  create  certain  results  for 
the  great  profit  of  the  money-makers. 

Q.  Have  you  that  portion  of  that  you  refer  to  be- 
fore you? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  in  Mr.  Galloway's  statement, 
dated  March,  1915: 

"In  March  1915,  the  J.  P.  Morgan  Interests,  the  steel  ship 
building,  the  powder  interests,  and  their  subsidiary  organ- 
izations got  together  12  men  high  up  in  the  newspaper 
world  and  employed  them  to  select  influential  newspapers 
in  the  United  States  and  a  sufficient  number  of  them  to 
control  generally  the  policy  of  the  daily  press  of  the  United 
States.  These  12  men  worked  the  problem  out  by  selecting 
179  newspapers,  and  then  began  by  an  elimination  process 
to  retain  only  those  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  controlling 
the  general  policy  of  the  daily  press  throughout  the  country. 
They  found  it  was  only  necessary  to  purchase  the  control 
of  the  greatest  papers.  The  25  papers  were  agreed  upon, 
emissaries  were  sent  to  purchase  the  policies,  national  and 
international  of  these  papers;  and  an  agreement  was  reached. 
The  policy  of  the  papers  was  bought,  to  be  paid  for  by  the 
month;  an  editor  was  furnished  for  each  paper  to  properly 
supervise  and  edit  information  regarding  the  questions  of 
preparedness,  militarism,  financial  policies  and  other  things 
of  national  and  international  nature  considered  vital  to  the 
interests  of  the  purchasers. 

"This  contract  is  in  existence  at  the  present  time  and  it 
accounts  for  the  news  columns  of  the  daily  press  being 
filled  with  all  sorts  of  preparedness  arguments  and  misrepre- 
sentations as  to  the  present  conditions  of  the  United  States 

97 


army  and  navy  and   the   possibility  and   probability   of   the 
United    States    being   attacked    by   foreign    foes." 

Congressman  Moore  of  Pennsylvania,  on  March 
17th,  1917,  offered  a  resolution  to  investigate  the  whole 
matter,  and  the  resolution,  I  believe,  died  in  commit- 
tee, at  any  rate  it  never  came  to  the  light  of  day. 

Q.     What  date  was  that  you  said  that  was,  sir? 

A.  March  17th,  1917,  so  that  they  could  have  aired 
the  thing  or  exposed  the  whole  thing  if  they  had 
chosen  to.  In  commenting  on  that  I  say: 

"After  all,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  these  charges  is  of  little 
moment;  the  great  outstanding  bitter  fact  is  that  the  news- 
papers instead  of  informing  us,  lied  to  us, — consistently." 

Whether  they  were  bought  as  Mr.  Galloway  con- 
tends is  not  of  any  importance,  they  did  misrepresent. 

Then  in  the  next  section  I  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  I  studied  the  school-boards  and  the  college  trustee 
boards  and  found  from  seven-eighths  or  nine-tenths 
of  their  members  were  business  or  professional  men, 
and  the  other  sections  of  the  pamphlets,  up  to  Section 
9  are  very  similar  to  the  sections  of  "The  Great  Mad- 
ness" in  the  same  respects. 

Sections  9  and  10  vary  and  differ  somewhat.  I  tried 
to  point  out  there  that  the  policy  of  compelling  the 
friendship  and  the  compelling  of  social  organizations 
through  militarism  is  a  mistaken  policy.  That  the 
purpose  of  social  organization  is  to  bring  people  to- 
gether; that  you  can  not  bring  people  together  with 
a  gun  or  a  sword,  you  have  got  to  bring  them  together 
on  some  kind  of  a  basis  of  co-operation. 

Q.  In  the  writing  of  these  articles  for  the  Rand 
School  what  were  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
were  ordered,  if  you  recall  ? 

A.  Well  these, — this  kind  of  a  thing  is  not  ordered 
as  a  rule.  As  a  rule,  whenever  I  get  up  an  idea  that 

98 


seems  worth  working  up,  I  work  it  up  and  then  if  one 
publisher  won't  publish  it,  I  try  another. 

Q.  Did  you  have  in  mind  at  that  time  inducing 
men  who  were  in  the  service  to  assassinate  their  officers 
or  their  superiors  and  causing  mutiny  on  account  of 
the  declaring  of  war,  that  they  should  go  against  their 
superior  officers? 

A.  I  did  not.  I  had  the  idea  in  mind  first  in  writing 
this  pamphlet  as  in  writing  all  my  books,  the  one  main 
point  of  view  that  I  believed  in  above  all  other  things, 
and  that  is  the  truth.  That  is,  that  I  believed  that  most 
of  the  people  were  not  getting  the  truth  and  I  believed 
if  they  should  have  the  entire  truth  which  was  not 
being  set  forth  and  stated  to  them  in  the  press,  and  I 
considered  it  a  responsibility,  to  tell  them  the  truth. 
These  pamphlets  were  written  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
senting one  side  of  the  general  situation. 

Q.  Was  it  or  was  it  not  your  intent  in  writing  and 
publishing  the  pamphlet  "The  Great  Madness,"  and  I 
will  even  include  the  other  literature,  although  that 
may  make  the  question  objectionable,  with  the  intent 
of  creating  insubordination,  disloyalty,  refusal  of  duty 
or  mutiny  in  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States? 

A.     It  was  not. 

Q.     Answer  that  yes  or  no? 

A.     It  was  not. 

Q.  Was  it  your  intent  by  writing  "The  Great  Mad- 
ness" or  the  other  publications,  to  obstruct  the  recruit- 
ing or  enlistment  service  of  the  United  States  to  the 
injury  of  the  service  of  the  United  States? 

A.     It  was  not. 

Q.  And  was  it  your  purpose  or  object  to  attempt 
to  create  insubordination,  disloyalty,  refusal  of  duty 
or  mutiny  within  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States? 

99 


A.  It  was  not.  Could  I  say  one  thing  in  that  con- 
nection? 

Q.    Yes. 

A.     Democracy  is  denned — 

THE  COURT:    He  has  told  us  about  that. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Unless  he  wants  to  explain  his 
answer. 

A.     May  I  explain  my  answer? 

THE  COURT :  It  will  be  elicited  by  a  question.  I 
have  been  very  liberal,  as  I  think  I  ought  to  be  in  this, 
but  this  will  have  to  be  elicited  by  questions. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  do  not  recall  anything  further 
that  I  have  to  ask  Mr.  Nearing. 


100 


The  Cross  Examination 

MR.  BARNES:  Referring  to  Exhibit  No.  5,  the 
pamphlet  "The  Menace  of  Militarism,"  Mr.  Nearing, 
at  whose  request  did  you  write  that  or  how  did  you 
happen  to  send  that  to  the  Rand  School  for  publica- 
tion? 

A.  At  some  time  previous  to  the  publication  of 
these  two  pamphlets,  I  can  not  say  just  when,  I  re- 
member being  in  the  Rand  School  and  Mr.  Karpf 
asking  me  if  I  would  write  something  for  the  school. 
I  replied  that  I  would  try.  At  that  time  or  previous 
to  that  time,  since  the  entrance  of  the  European 
nations  into  the  war  I  had  been  collecting  a  great  deal 
of  material  on  the  war,  and  our  relation  to  the  whole 
situation.  That  was  the  thing  then  in  my  mind,  it 
was  a  thing  on  which  I  was  speaking  and  writing,  and 
in  the  course  of  events  I  wrote  up  this  material  into 
a  couple  of  pamphlets  and  submitted  them  to  the  Rand 
School. 

Q.  By  the  way,  you  know  who  selected  the  pic- 
tures for  the  covers  for  The  Menace  of  Militarism? 

A.     That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.     You  had  nothing  to  do  with  that? 

A.  I  can  not  say,  but  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  take 
responsibility  for  it. 

Q.  I  don't  want  you  to  take  any  responsibility  that 
does  not  really  belong  to  you.  I  want  to  know  whether 
you  picked  out  this  picture,  or  facsimile  of  Jesus  Christ 
being  shot  down  by  the  soldiers  in  uniform,  or  sug- 
gested that  that  be  put  upon  the  cover  of  the  pamphlet. 

A.     I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Now  when  did  you  start  your  activities  in  op- 
position to  the  preparedness  movement? 

101 


A.  Well,  I  can  not  remember  definitely  but  it  was 
probably  in  the  beginning  of  1916. 

Q.  Was  it  prior  to  the  swing  around  the  country 
that  you  said  President  Wilson  made,  or  was  it  about 
that  time  or  afterwards? 

A.  Well,  at  that  time  the  American  Union  against 
Militarism  organized  a  group  of  people  to  take  that 
swing,  from  the  President's  suggestion,  and  I  was  one 
of  the  group,  so  that  I  must  have  engaged  very  actively 
in  the  propaganda  before  that.  However,  my  recollec- 
tion on  the  point  is  not  clear. 

Q.  And  you  joined  the  American  Union  against 
Militarism? 

A.    Yes,  sir,  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  official  position  with  the  or- 
ganization ? 

A.  I  think  I  was  at  one  time  a  member  of  the  Exec- 
utive Committee. 

Q.  Then  the  object  of  that  organization,  I  suppose, 
was  to  combat  the  preparedness  movement? 

A.  Its  object  was  what  its  name  signified:  It  was 
an  organized  effort  to  prevent  the  spirit  of  militarism 
in  America. 

Q.  Well,  at  that  time  it  sprung  into  being,  I  think 
you  just  testified  about  the  time  this  preparedness 
movement  got  under  way? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  at  the  time  the  preparedness  move- 
ment was  thoroughly  under  way,  it  would  be  at  the 
end  of  1915,  or  thereabouts. 

Q.  Did  you  belong  to  any  other  organization  of 
the  same  character? 

A.  I  think  not.  Do  you  mean  previous  to  the  writ- 
ting  of  these  pamphlets? 

Q.  No.  About  this  time  in  1915-1916  prior  to  our 
entry  into  the  war? 

A.     I  think  not. 

102 


Q.  Your  method  in  writing  these  pamphlets  and 
the  purpose  of  writing  them  was  I  suppose  to  open  the 
eyes  of  the  people  so  that  they  would  not  follow  into 
the  swing  of  the  preparedness  movement? 

A.  I  wanted  to  show  the  people  the  real  way  to 
prevent  militarism  and  war.  I  did  not  believe  that  the 
preparedness  crowd  knew  the  real  way  and  therefore 
I  tried  to  present  my  side  of  the  case. 

Q.  You  didn't  want  them  to  follow  the  way  urged 
by  the  preparedness  crowd? 

A.     I  certainly  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  want  them  to  prepare  for  war  by 
large  appropriations  of  money  for  munitions  or  for  the 
navy  and  so  forth  ? 

A.     I  certainly  did  not. 

Q.  Or  by  military  training  or  anything  of  that 
sort? 

A.     Certainly  not. 

Q.  Now  after  the  severance  of  diplomatic  relations 
with  Germany  in  1917,  Mr.  Nearing,  did  you  join  or 
belong  to  any  other  organizations  whose  purpose  was 
to  prevent  our  entering  war  at  that  time? 

A.  The  only  other  organization  to  which  I  be- 
longed was  the  People's  Council.  Now  whether  that 
was  previous  to  the  writing  of  these  pamphlets  or  not 
I  don't  remember. 

Q.     That  was,  however,  after  the  war,  wasn't  it? 

A.  That  was  organized — really  it  was  organized 
the  first  of  September,  1917,  in  Chicago. 

Q.     And  you  had  a  preliminary  organization? 

A.  It  was  organized  I  think  on  the  31st  day  of  May, 
1917,  the  preliminary  organization. 

Q.     1917? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     You  did  not  belong  to  any  of  the  Emergency 

103 


Peace  Federations'  movements  or  anything  of  that 
kind? 

A.  There  were  two  organizations,  The  Emergency 
Peace  Federation  and  the  American  Neutral  Confer- 
ence Committee  at  that  time.  Whether  my  name  is 
on  the  letter-head  of  the  Emergency  Peace  Federation 
or  not  I  don't  remember,  but  if  it  is  not  I  should  have 
been  rather  glad  to  have  it  there. 

Q.  We  have  found  out  in  this  city  that  the  appear- 
ing of  a  name  on  a  letterhead  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  the  person  belongs  to  an  organization.  So 
far  as  you  know  you  had  nothing  to  do  with  that 
society? 

A.     Yes,  I  spoke  for  them. 

Q.     Oh,  you  spoke  for  them? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  And  you  are  then  of  course  in  sympathy  with 
their  purposes  for  peace? 

A.     Certainly. 

Q.  You  desired  that  we  would  not  enter  the  war 
against  Germany  even  after  the  severance  of  diplo- 
matic relations? 

A.  I  desired  that  we  should  not  enter  into  any  war 
and  not  this  war. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  date  on  which  Congress 
passed  the  resolution  recognizing  that  a  state  of  war 
existed  with  the  German  Empire? 

A.    April  6th,  1917. 

Q.  Now  do  you  remember  the  date  on  which  the 
Seven  Billion  Dollar  loan  was  passed  or  authorized? 

A.     I  do  not. 

Q.     About  the  end  of  April,  wasn't  it,  1917? 

A.     No  answer. 

Q.     You  have  looked  at  the  World  Almanac? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  I  have  a  copy. 

Q.     You  recognize  it  as  a  dispenser  of  capitalistic 

104 


information? 

A.     No  answer. 

Q.     A  reliable  dispenser  of  information? 

A.  It  is  a  reliable  authority  on  points  of  this  char- 
acter, yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  appears  here  from  page  202  that  this 
statute  became  a  law  on  April  24th,  1917.  That  is  the 
law  under  which  the  Liberty  Loans  were  floated? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  engage  in  any  active  operation  in  op- 
position to  the  passage  of  this  act  of  April  24th,  1917 
for  raising  money  for  the  war? 

A.  I  think  I  did.  I  think  I  made — I  think  I  remem- 
ber making  a  speech  in  Newark,  New  Jersey,  in  which 
I  opposed  the  method  of  war  finance  used ;  I  certainly 
felt  opposed  to  that  method  of  war  finance. 

Q.  You  felt  opposed  to  any  method  of  war  financ- 
ing? 

A.     I  felt  opposed  to  any  war. 

Q.  Well,  we  were  at  war  at  this  time  when  you  say 
you  opposed  the  particular  proposition  that  was  then 
before  Congress,  the  raising  of  money  by  the  issuance 
of  bonds. 

A.  Before  we  entered  the  war  I  believed  that  we 
should  keep  out  of  it.  After  we  got  into  the  war,  -I 
believed  that  we  should  get  out  of  it  with  as  little 
damage  as  possible  and  I  regarded  the  issue  of  bonds 
as  a  method  of  throwing  the  burden  of  the  war  over 
onto  the  future.  And  I  believed  that  the  current  in- 
come in  the  present  generation  should  pay  the  costs 
of  the  war. 

Q.  Well,  my  question  was  directed  as  to  whether 
or  not  you  took  any  active  part  in  the  opposition  to 
the  Act  of  April  24th,  1917.  I  understood  you  to  say 
that  you  made  a  speech  in  Newark;  was  that  correct? 

A.     I  believe  I  made  a  speech — I  am  sorry  to  appear 

105 


not  clear  on  these  points,  but  I  have  made  about  200 
speeches  a  year  in  the  past  two  years  and  I  can  not  be 
sure  where  and  when  I  said  these  things.  But  I  cer- 
tainly may  be  understood  as  very  emphatic  in  saying 
that  I  was  then  and  am  now  opposed  to  issuing  bonds 
as  a  method  of  raising  revenue. 

Q.  Now,  after  this  bill  was  passed,  the  next  ques- 
tion— big  question  before  Congress,  was  the  selective 
service  act,  was  it  not? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  take  part  in  any  opposition  or  any 
movement  to  prevent  the  raising  of  an  army? 

A.  I  spoke  against  the  passage  of  a  conscription 
act  and  wrote  against  it  in  these  pamphlets. 

Q.  Now,  at  the  time  you  made  these  speeches  in 
opposition  to  the  passage  of  the  Conscription  Act, 
were  you  speaking  under  the  auspices  of  any  society 
then? 

A.  I  probably  spoke  for  the  American  Union 
Against  Militarism  although  I  would  not  be  sure. 

Q.     Where  did  you  deliver  those  speeches? 

A.     Well,  sir,  I  spoke  all  over  the  United  States. 

Q.  That  act  was  passed  on  the  18th  of  May,  was 
it  not? 

A.     The  conscription  act? 

Q.     This  selective — this  act  or  the  conscription  act? 

A.     I  am  not  certain. 

Q.     About  that  date? 

THE  COURT :    That  was  the  date. 

Q.  That  was  the  date.  Are  you  familiar  with  its 
provisions  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  your  arrangements  to  join 
the  Rand  School  faculty  or  give  lectures  to  them  dur- 
ing the  following  season,  about  what  date  were  those 
arrangements  made  ? 

106 


A.  Well,  I  had  been  lecturing  for  them  for  two  or 
three  years,  and  I  do  not  remember.  It  was-taken  for 
granted  that  I  would  come  back  and  lecture  each  year. 

Q.  Had  you  been  lecturing  for  them  in  the  same — 
with  the  same  frequency  prior  to  1917,  that  you  did 
during  the  season  of  1917  and  1918? 

A.  Well,  no,  because  previous  to  that  I  had  lived 
in  Philadelphia  or  in  Toledo,  and  in  the  Fall  of  1917, 
I  came  to  New  York,  and  therefore  I  was  able  to  give 
more  courses  at  the  school  than  I  had  ever  been  able 
to  give  before. 

Q.  You  spoke  about  The  People's  Council;  when 
was  the  preliminary  organization  of  The  People's 
Council  arranged  for? 

A.     May  31st,  1917. 

Q.     And  were  you  one  of  the  founders  of  that? 

A.  I  was  one  of  the  speakers  at  their  meeting  and 
I  think  I  was  a  member  of  their  executive  committee 
although  I  am  not  certain  on  that  point.  I  certainly 
approved  of — 

Q.     Didn't  you  become  the  chairman,  practically? 

A.     September  16th,  1917. 

Q.  And  you  did  prepare,  did  you  not,  an  outline 
for  the  organization  of  The  People's  Council? 

A.     I  did. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  announced  purpose  of  the 
People's  Council? 

A.  There  were  three  different  purposes :  The  first 
one  was  to  secure  a  statement  of  peace  terms,  of  war 
aims ;  the  second  was  to  preserve  civil  liberties ;  the 
third,  was  to  safeguard  economic  and  industrial  stand- 
ards and  rights. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  Bulletin  No.  4  of  The 
People's  Council  which  is  dated  September  1st,  1917 
and  I  ask  you  if  you  are  familiar  with  that  address 
signed  by  the  executive  committee?  (Handing  paper 

107 


to  witness.)     Perhaps  I  am  getting  ahead  of  my  story. 

A.     I  just  as  leave  answer  your  question. 

Q.  I  know  you  would.  When  you  say  that  the 
immediate  business  of  The  People's  Council,  was  not 
for  the  opening  of  negotiations  for  peace,  have  you 
any  reference  to  any  particular  period  of  time? 

A.  Yes,  you  asked  me  about  the  plan  that  I  drew 
up  in  May. 

Q.  In  May,  oh,  I  see.  The  purpose  was  then  of 
having  the  country  state  their  peace  terms  in  order  to 
obtain  peace,  was  it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  in  order  to  bring  about  the  beginning 
of  peace  negotiations. 

Q.  What  was  the  theory  of  the  people  in  The 
People's  Conference,  was  not  that  something  modeled 
along  the  lines  of  the  Working  Men's  Council  of 
Russia  ? 

A.  The  theory  of  The  People's  Council  as  I  under- 
stood it  was  that  the  Liberal  and  Radical  elements  of 
the  country  should  get  together  and  express  their 
opinions  in  coherent  form  just  as  the  banking  and 
business  houses  of  the  country  had  gotten  together 
in  the  preparedness  campaign  and  expressed  their 
point  of  view. 

Q.  Well,  doctor,  is  it  also  a  fact,  that  they  were 
to  be  in  continuous  session,  or  it  was  to  remain  in  con- 
tinuous session  during  the  war? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  we  used  the  phrase  in  relation 
to  that  as  a  "parliament  of  the  people."  That  was  a 
phrase  used  by  Mr.  Wilson  in  the  New  Freedom. 

Q.  Did  you  join  any  other  society  springing  up 
after  our  entrance  into  the  war? 

A.  I  do  not  remember.  I  do  not  remember  whether 
I  was  a  member  of  the  executive  committee  of  the 
Civil  Liberties  Bureau  at  any  time,  I  may  have  been, 
but  I  am  not  certain.  I  might  say  that  I  joined  the 

108 


Socialist  Party,  is  that  what  you  are  after? 

Q.  I  am  not  after  anything-.  Did  you — don't  call 
the  Socialist  Party  a  party — well,  I  am  speaking  really 
with  reference  to  parties  that  sprung  up  after  the  war ; 
that  was  in  existence  before  the  war.  What  was  this 
National  Civil  Liberties  Bureau,  that  you  don't  know 
whether  you  were  or  were  not  a  member  of? 

A.  The  National  Civil  Liberties  Bureau,  was  an 
organization  of  private  citizens  who  believed  that  the 
First  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  should  be  en- 
forced. 

Q.  We  are  not  all  constitutional  lawyers,  tell  us 
what  the  first  amendment  to  the  Constitution  is? 

A.  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  the  es- 
tablishment of  religion  or  abridging  the  freedom  of 
speech  or  press  or  the  rights  of  the  people,  to  assemble 
and  petition  Congress  for  a  redress  of  their  grievances. 

Q.  You  say  the  National  Civil  Liberties  Bureau, 
devoted  its  activities  to  seeing  that  Congress  should 
not  make  such  a  law,  or  did  it  devote  its  activities  to 
opposing  such  laws  as  Congress  had  enacted  that  in 
its  judgment  were  in  violation  of  that  Amendment? 

A.  As  I  recollect,  The  National  Civil  Liberties 
views  at  that  time,  they  were  devoted  exclusively  to 
the  protection  of  civil  liberties  as  guaranteed  under 
that  First  Amendment. 

Q.     Its  conception  of  that? 

A.  Yes,  or  understanding  of  it,  yes,  sir,  and  it  reads 
very  plainly. 

Q.  And  that  embraced,  did  it  not,  handling  cases 
of  the  Conscientious  Objector? 

A.     It  did. 

Q.     And  also  of  the  soap-box  orator? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  And  the  suppressions  of  newspapers 
and  the  suppressions  of  assemblies  and  of  the  sup- 
pression and  prosecution  of  petitioners. 

109 


Q.  In  fact,  any  curtailment  of  the  ordinary  civil 
liberties  which  were  enjoyed  in  times  of  peace.  It 
was  the  purpose  of  this  society  insofar  as  the  curtail- 
ment concerned  the  matters  mentioned  in  the  Amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution,  it  was  the  purpose  of  this 
Society  to  fight? 

A.  It  was  the  purpose  of  the  Society  to  insist  upon 
the  enjoyment  of  the  liberties  guaranteed  under  the 
Constitution. 

Q.  And  it  opposed  any  curtailment  of  the  custom- 
ary right  of  free  speech  and  the  customary  right  of 
assemblage  and  those  other  things? 

A.  That  is  a  negative  purpose.  Its  purpose  was 
positive.  It  was  to  insist  upon  the  rights  of  free  speech 
and  free  assemblage. 

Q.     When  did  you  join  the  Socialist  Party? 

A.  July  1st,  1917.  I  did  not  join  before  that  time 
because  I  had  taught  school  up  to  that  time  and  I 
believed  that  a  teacher  should  not  be  a  propagandist. 

Q.     You  are  teaching  school  now? 

A.     Incidentally  I  am  lecturing,  yes. 

Q.     Is  not  lecturing  teaching? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  and  so  is  writing. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  sign,  then,  I  take  it,  an  original 
application  just  like  this  here? 

A.  I  signed  the  application  blank  and  I  did  join 
the  Socialist  Party  on  the  1st  of  July,  1917. 

MR.  BARNES :    I  offer  this  in  evidence. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  It  is  objected  to  as  utterly  in- 
competent and  immaterial.  I  do  not  see  that  it  meets 
any  issue  in  this  case,  whether  he  joined  that  party  or 
the  prohibition  party. 

THE  COURT:    What  is  the  theory,  Mr.  Barnes? 

MR.  BARNES :  The  theory  is  that  the  gentleman 
joined  the  Socialist  Party  and  consented  to  the  senti- 
ments contained  in  the  application  which  stated  "in 

110 


all  my  political  actions  as  a  member  of  the  Socialist 
Party,  I  agree  to  be  guided  by  the  constitution  and 
platform  of  that  party,"  and  we  have  shown  what  the 
constitution  and  platform  of  the  party  were  with  re- 
gard to  war,  and  as  adopted  at  the  Convention  in 
April,  1917. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  I  have  the  right  to  say  some- 
thing on  it  and  before  I  do  I  have  the  right  to  see  what 
you  are  offering.  I  have  not  seen  this  card. 

MR.  BARNES:  Have  you  never  seen  that  before? 
I  am  astonished. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  No,  I  never  saw  this  card  before 
so  your  astonishment  may  continue. 

Q.  Now,  then,  you  joined  the  Socialist  Party  on 
the  first  of  July;  did  you  read  the  majority  resolution 
of  that  Party  as  promulgated  at  the  St.  Louis  conven- 
tion April,  1917? 

A.     I  did. 

Q.     Did  you  approve  of  it? 

A.  With  one  exception  I  did  and  that  one  excep- 
tion is  the  clause — 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Just  one  second,  you  are  asked 
a  question  that  calls  for  yes  or  no  answer  to  that  ques- 
tion. 

MR.  BARNES :  However,  I  will  not  insist  upon 
my  offer  if  Mr.  Stedman  insists  on  his  objection,  and 
I  insist  on  the  witness'  answering  yes  or  no. 

THE  COURT:  He  said,  "with  one  exception  I 
did,"  and  that  is  an  answer. 

MR.  BARNES :  I  am  going  to  try  to  find  out  what 
that  exception  is. 

A.  I  will  tell  you  what  the  exception  was  if  you 
want  me  to. 

Q.     I  would  rather  come  to  it  in  my  own  good  time. 

A.     I  beg  your  pardon. 

Q.     Did  you  vote  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the 

111 


platform  by  the  referendum? 

A.     I  did  not,  and  if  I  had  been — 

MR.  STEDMAN:  Wait  now,  you  have  answered 
the  question. 

MR.  BARNES :  Now,  if  the  Court  please,  I  don't 
think  it  is  proper  for  my  adversary  to  get  up  here  and 
stop  off  this  witness  while  he  is  under  cross-examina- 
tion. 

THE  COURT :    The  Government  is  right— 

MR.  STEDMAN:  The  Government  is  right,  yes, 
to  have  an  answer  to  his  question,  but  I  object  to 
volunteering  answers,  whether  it  is  from  my  client  or 
another's. 

THE  COURT :  Is  that  the  conclusion  of  the  volun- 
teering, you  don't  Iike4t?  You  can  move  to  strike  it 
out. 

MR  STEDMAN :  And  I  do  move  to  strike  it  out, 
the  volunteered  part. 

THE  COURT :    That  is  a  classic  method. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  believe  in  the  conscription  sys- 
tem, not  the  volunteer ! 

Q.  You  say,  Mr.  Nearing,  that  while  you  did  not 
vote  for  the  adopting  of  it,  you  would  have  done  so 
if  you  had  been  in  Toledo  at  the  present  time? 

A.  If  I  had  had  an  opportunity  to  have  done  so,  I 
certainly  should  have  done  so. 

Q.  The  next  thing,  now,  going  back  over  some  of 
these — have  you  a  copy  of  the  American  Labor  Year 
Book? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have.  Are  you  going  to  question  me 
on  the  majority  platform  question  as  it  occurs  in  that 
Labor  Year  Book? 

Q.  On  the  majority  resolution  in  that  Labor  Year 
Book.  Now  referring,  Mr.  Nearing,  to  page  50  of  the 
Year  Book,  the  first  paragraph : 

"The  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States  in   the 

112 


present  grave  crisis,  solemnly  reaffirms  its  allegiance 
to  the  principle  of  internationalism  and  working  class 
solidarity,  the  world  over."  What  did  you  understand 
by  the  principle  of  "internationalism  and  working  class 
solidarity  the  world  over?" 

A.  Why,  I  understood  that  to  be  a  declaration  of 
a  social  antagonism  between  the  owning  class  and  the 
working  class,  and  the  desirability  of  the  workers 
standing  by  their  own  crowd. 

Q.  Reading  further:  "And  proclaims  its  unalter- 
able opposition  to  the  war  just  declared  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States."  Did  you  approve  of 
that? 

A.     I  did. 

Q.  And  did  that  represent  your  individual  position 
during  the  Summer  of  1917? 

A.     I  was  opposed  to  this  war  and  all  wars. 

Q.     And  you  were  unalterably  opposed  to  it? 

A.     Unalterably  opposed  to  this  war  and  to  all  wars. 

Q.  On  the  next  page,  on  page  51,  in  the  second 
paragraph :  "We  therefore  call  upon  the  workers  of 
all  countries  to  refuse  support  to  their  Governments 
in  their  wars."  Did  you  approve  of  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  working  man 
has  any  right  to  fight  in  a  capitalistic  or  any  other 
war. 

Q.     And  you  regard  this  as  such  a  war? 

A.  As  a  capitalists'  war,  a  war  between  capitalist 
nations. 

Q.  And  then  just  below  that:  "As  against  the 
false  doctrine  of  national  patriotism."  What  did  you 
mean  by  that  or  what  did  you  understand  that  meant? 

A.  I  understood  that  whenever  a  man's  fealty  to 
a  group  reaches  a  stage  where  it  compels  him  to  go 
out  and  destroy  another  group,  it  is  a  false  and  perni- 
cious and  insidious  social  doctrine.  That  is  the  old 

113 


standard  of  countries  dealing  with  feudisms,  and  it  is 
the  present  standard  that  makes  warfare  between 
nations  and  it  is  the  disintegrating  social  influence 
which  we  are  trying  to  combat. 

Q.  That  is  whenever  a  man's  fealty  to  his  country, 
that  is  to  his  own  particular  nation  to  which  he  be- 
longs leads  him  to  a  point  that  he  wants  to  go  out  and 
whip  the  people  belonging  to  another  nation,  you  feel 
that  that  is  a  false  sentiment  and  doctrine? 

A.  Any  social  standard  that  leads  one  man  to  raise 
his  hand  against — in  violence  against — any  other  man 
is  a  false  standard  and  doctrine. 

Q.  May  a  class  war  lead  a  man  to  raise  his  hand 
in  violence  against  the  capitalistic  class? 

A.     At  that  point  I  disapprove  of  it. 

Q.     At  that  point  you  are  a  pacifist  socialist? 

A.     I  am  a  pacifist,  yes. 

Q.     You  are  a  pacifist  even  to  class  struggles? 

A.  I  am  a  pacifist  in  that  I  believe  that  no  man  has 
a  right  to  do  violence  to  any  other  man. 

Q.     Even  in  a  class  struggle  ? 

A.     Under  no  circumstances. 

Q.  Just  below  that,  "in  support  of  capitalism  we 
will  not  willingly  give  a  single  life  or  a  single  dollar." 
Did  you  approve  of  that? 

A.  I  did.  I  believed  that  workers  had  nothing  in 
common  with  the  capitalist  system. 

Q.  You  mean  as  applied  to  the  situation  in  1917, 
that  that  would  mean  that  you  would  not  volunteer 
in  the  army  and  that  you  would  not  subscribe  to  liberty 
loans  and  so  forth? 

A.  I  mean  that  I  would  not  be  willing  to  support 
a  capitalistic  war. 

Q.  Can  not  you  answer  whether  that  meant  those 
specific  things :  volunteering  in  the  army  and  subscrib- 
ing to  the  liberty  loans? 

114 


A.     Are  vou  asking  what  it  meant  to  me? 

Q.     Yes.' 

A.  It  meant  to  me  that  I  would  not  volunteer  for 
the  army  and  that  I  would  not  subscribe  to  liberty 
bonds. 

Q.  And  it  was  that  position  that  you  felt  that  other 
persons  should  take? 

A.  Each  man  has  a  right  to  do — to  take  his  own 
position.  That  was  what  that  platform  meant  to  me. 

Q.     And  that  is  what  you  were  working  for? 

A.  That  is  the  thing  in  which  I  believed  and  the 
thing  for  which  I  am  still  working. 

Q.     And  were  working  in  1917? 

A.     And  was  working  in  1917,  and  before  that. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  Did  that  include  a  desire  on  your  part  to  im- 
press your  views  in  that  regard  on  others? 

A.  Only  insofar  as  others  were  interested  in  my 
views. 

Q.  Well,  that  answer  is  not  very  clear.  You  ex- 
pressed certain  views.  Did  you  desire  to  impress 
those  views  on  others? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  else  I  should  not  have  spoken  and 
written.  I  did  not  desire  to  force  them  upon  others. 

Q.  I  didn't  say  "force."  I  mean  impress  it  on 
others  ? 

A.  Well,  the  word  "impress"  is  not  so  clear.  I 
desired  to  place  that  before  other  people  for  their  ac- 
ceptance or  rejection. 

BY  MR.  BARNES : 

Q.  But  you  desired  to  persuade  them  to  their  ac- 
ceptance did  you  not? 

A.  If  possible,  yes.  That  is  the  purpose  of  teach- 
ing. 

Q.  Page  52 :  "We  brand  the  declaration  of  war  by 
our  Government  as  a  crime  against  the  people  of  the 

115 


United  States  and  against  the  nations  of  the  world." 
Did  you  agree  with  that  sentiment? 

MR.  STEDMAN:  I  object  to  it  as  incompetent 
upon  any  grounds,  whether  he  agrees  with  it  or  not. 
I  object  to  it  on  the  ground  that  it  does  not  go  to 
motive,  it  does  not  go  to  intent  and  certainly  does  not 
go  to  wilfulness  and  is  certainly  not  an  issue  in  this 
case.  It  is  of  course  perfectly  apparent  to  me  why  he 
is  being  asked  these  questions. 

MR.  BARNES:    I  am  glad. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  And  you  are  trying  the  Socialist 
Party,  that  is  what  you  are  doing  here,  you  are  at- 
tempting to  try  the  Socialist  Party. 

MR.  BARNES :    Oh,  no,  not  at  all. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  And  that  is  perfectly  apparent 
to  me  that  that  is  what  you  are  attempting  to  do. 

THE  COURT:  I  tried  to  make  clear  by  previous 
rulings — the  question  now  is  merely  calling  for  the 
view  of  the  defendant,  but  it  does  not  call  for  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  language,  because  the  language  pre- 
sumably is  very  simple  and  very  clear.  It  is  not,  as 
I  view  it  in  any  manner,  a  trial  of  any  party,  it  is  a 
search  by  the  Government  counsel  on  cross-examina- 
tion under  familiar  rules,  of  the  view  of  the  defendant 
on  the  question  of  intent,  he  having  been  permitted 
and  I  think  very  properly  so  to  explain  the  meaning 
of  the  expressions  in  "The  Great  Madness."  Now  if  it 
does  not  call  for  a  construction  of  the  paper  but  simply 
calls  for  a  statement  from  the  witness  as  to  whether 
he  agreed  with  the  statement  or  not,  and  as  the  state- 
ment is  entirely  simple,  I  will  allow  the  question. 

A.  I  did ;  I  regard  any  declaration  of  war  as  a 
crime  against  the  human  race. 

Q.  Now  the  next  sentence :  "In  all  modern  history 
there  has  been  no  war  more  unjustifiable  than  the  war 
in  which  we  are  about  to  engage."  Did  you  agree 
with  that? 

116 


A.  I  did,  because  the  more  intelligent  people  be- 
come the  less  justifiable  does  war  become. 

Q.  And  the  next  sentence :  "No  greater  dishonor 
has  ever  been  forced  upon  a  people  than  that  which 
the  capitalist  class  is  forcing  upon  this  nation  against 
its  will."  Did  you  agree  with  that  sentiment? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  And  the  next  sentence :  "In  harmony  with 
these  principles,  the  Socialist  Party  emphatically  re- 
jects the  proposal  that  in  time  of  war  the  workers 
should  suspend  their  struggle  for  better  conditions." 
Did  you  agree  with  that? 

A.  Certainly,  because  I  regard  war  as  an  incident 
to  the  economic  struggle,  and  the  economic  struggle 
as  fundamental  and  continuous. 

Q.  And  the  next  clause :  "The  acute  situation 
created  by  war  calls  for  an  even  more  vigorous  pro- 
secution of  the  class  struggle."  Did  you  agree  with 
that? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  if  you  interpret  the  "class  struggle" 
to  mean  the  struggle  of  the  workers  to  better  their 
economic  conditions  under  which  they  are  laboring. 

Q.     That  is  a  struggle  against  the  capitalists? 

A.     A  struggle  against  the  capitalists. 

Q.  There  are  certain  recommendations  here :  "We 
recommend  to  the  workers  and  pledge  ourselves  to 
the  following  course  of  action : 

1.  Continuous,  active  and  public  opposition  to  the 
war  through  demonstrations,  mass  petitions  and  all 
other  means  within  our  power."  Did  you  agree  with 
that? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  believe  that  we  should  have  used 
all  legal  means  to  bring  the  war  to  a  speedy  conclu- 
sion. 

Q.  Do  you  find  anything  in  there  about  "legal 
means,"  any  limitations  to  "legal  means?" 

117 


A.  It  says  "within  our  power,"  and  the  Socialist 
Party  has  always  taken  the  position  that  it  acts  with- 
in the  law. 

Q.  "Unyielding  opposition  to  all  proposed  legis- 
lation for  military  or  industrial  conscription.  Should 
such  conscription  be  forced  upon  the  people  we  pledge 
ourselves  to  continuous  efforts  for  the  repeal  of  such 
laws  and  to  the  support  of  all  mass  movements  in  op- 
position to  conscription."  Did  you  approve  of  that? 

A.  So  long  as  the  "mass  movements"  were  legal, 
yes. 

Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  "mass  movements?" 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  object  if  your  Honor  please, 
a  mass  is  always  distinguishable  from  individual  ac- 
tion, it  is  plain  from  the  language. 

Q.  You  would  like  to  explain  what  you  mean  by 
mass  movements,  wouldn't  you? 

A.  I  would  like  to  have  an  opportunity  to  answer 
all  of  your  questions  fully  and  frankly. 

Q.  I  think  you  are  answering  them  very  fully  and 
frankly.  Now  I  am  asking  you,  would  not  you  like  an 
opportunity  to  tell  these  12  gentlemen  of  the  Jury 
what  you  meant,  what  you  understood  by  the  meaning 
of  "mass  movement"  in  opposition  to  conscription 
when  you  approved  of  it? 

A.  You  mean  would  I  like  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.     I  certainly  would. 

MR.  BARNES:  Now,  Mr.  Stedman,  won't  you 
please  let  your  client  answer  the  question? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  My  client  will  be  retaining  him 
in  a  little  while. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  what  you  mean  by  "mass  move- 
ments" and  what  you  understood  "mass  movements" 
in  opposition  to  conscription  meant? 

118 


THE  COURT:     Silence  on  the  part  of  counsel? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  said  that  my  client  would  be 
retaining  him  in  a  little  while,  your  Honor. 

MR.  BARNES :  The  Court  wants  to  know  if  you 
withdraw  your  objection. 

MR.  STEDMAN:     No  I  think  I  shall  let  it  stand. 

THE  COURT:    Objection  sustained. 

MR.  BARNES :    You'd  better  get  another  lawyer. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Nearing,  let  us  turn  over  to  page  377, 
where  we  have  the  "Socialist  Party  platform"  and  then 
turn  over  particularly  to  the  place  with  reference  to 
immediate  program,  and  with  particular  reference  to 
paragraph  No.  6 — I  will  read  the  introduction  first: 

"The  following  are  measures  which  we  believe  of 
immediate  practical  importance  and  for  which  we 
wage  an  especially  energetic  campaign. 

"6.  Resistance  to  compulsory  military  training  and 
to  the  conscription  of  life  and  labor."  Did  you  approve 
of  that? 

A.  I  did  as  a  policy  of  objecting  to  a  policy.  In 
other  words,  I  thought  the  policy  of  military  training 
and  the  conscription  of  life  and  labor  was  a  bad  social 
policy. 

Q.     And  did  you  approve  of  the  next  paragraph : 

"Repudiation  of  war  debts?" 

A.     Emphatically,  yes. 

Q.  Now  you  are  familiar  with  the  first  liberty  loan 
campaign  ? 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  took  place  during  the  first  part  of 
June,  1917? 

A.     That,  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.     Well,  it  took  place  before  you  wrote  this  book? 

A.     It  did. 

Q.  And  you  regarded  the  liberty  loan,  of  course, 
as  a  war  debt? 

119 


A.  I  regarded  it  as  a  war  debt  and  as  a  financial 
mistake. 

Q.     But  it  had  a  great  many  subscribers? 

A.     It  had  a  great  many. 

Q.  It  had  a  great  many.  Do  you  approve  of  the 
repudiation  of  that  loan? 

A.  As  a  socialist,  I  approve  of  the  confiscation  of 
all  forms  of  property  which  enables  one  man  to  live 
without  work  on  another  man's  labor,  and  that  in- 
cludes the  liberty  loan  or  any  other  form  of  bonded 
indebtedness. 

Q.  The  question  is  whether  you  approved  of  the 
repudiation  of  the  loan,  the  loan  having  been  floated 
or  made,  or  whatever  you  choose  to  call  it,  prior  to  the 
writing  or  printing  and  distribution  of  "The  Great 
Madness." 

THE  WITNESS :  Well,  I  was  asked  here  sir,  re- 
garding this  statement  No.  7,  "repudiation  of  war 
debts."  I  regard  that  as  the  essential  thing  for  all  of 
the  peoples  of  the  world  to  do,  including  the  peoples 
of  the  United  States. 

Q.     The  liberty  loan  was  a  war  debt,  was  it  not? 

A.     It  was. 

Q.  And  when  you  approved  of  this  plank  in  the 
"immediate  program"  you  approved  of  the  repudiation 
of  the  liberty  loan  among  other  debts? 

A.  Of  that  and  all  other  war  debts,  and  all  debts 
of  a  similar  nature.  In  other  words,  I  am  not  object- 
ing to  that  because  they  are  war  debts,  I  am  objecting 
to  that  because  they  are  a  form  of  property  which  en- 
ables one  man  to  live  parasitically  on  another  man's 
labor. 

Q.  Now  on  the  first  page  we  have  three  quota- 
tions, one  from  Mohammed  and  two  from  his  Modern 
Disciple  John  Reed.  Did  you  select  those  quotations? 

A.     I  did.     I  might  say,  sir,  that  the  title  of  the 

120 


pamphlet  was  suggested  to  me  because  of  a  speech  by 
President  Wilson,  at  Kansas  City,  in  which  he  said, 
"madness  has  entered  into  all  things,"  and  that  sug- 
gested to  me  this  title. 

Q.  Was  he  speaking  of  Europe  or  America  at  that 
time? 

A.  He  was  speaking  of  Europe  at  that  time.  That 
was  before  America  got  the  madness. 

Q.  Now,  at  the  end  of  the  first  paragraph  you  say, 
this  is  on  page  5:  "The  American  plutocracy  urged 
the  war,  shouted  for  it,  demanded  it,  insisted  upon  it 
and  finally  got  it."  Now  tell  us  just  what  you  meant 
by  the  American  plutocracy  as  used  in  that  sentence? 

A.  By  the  American  plutocracy,  I  meant  the  small 
group  of  men  who  exercise  the  authority  in  affairs  of 
economic,  social  and  other  forms  of  American  life. 

Q.  Well,  now,  you  say  here,  going  back  to  page  5, 
"American  plutocracy  urged  the  war,  shouted  for  it, 
demanded  it,  insisted  upon  it  and  finally  got  it" ;  did 
you  mean  by  that,  that  for  selfish  reasons  big  business 
wanted  to  have  us  get  into  the  war? 

A.  Why,  after  a  certain  point,  yes.  That  is  after 
the  Big  Business  interests  were  so  involved  with  the 
Allied  credit  that  nothing  except  our  entrance  into  the 
war  would  prevent  the  smash  of  the  Allied  credit  ma- 
chine. 

Q.     Now  what  date  would  you  place  that? 

A.  I  read  some  documents  yesterday  which  indi- 
cated that  it  was  some  time  along  in  the  early  part  of 
1917,  or  late  1916.  It  was  very  difficult  then,  to  get 
any  information  at  all  about  the  situation. 

Q.  This  preparedness  campaign  you  told  us  about 
was  in  the  Fall  of  1916? 

A.     1915-1916. 

Q.  At  that  stage  do  you  think  that  Big  Business 
wanted  us  to  get  into  the  war? 

121 


A.     Probably  not. 

Q.     Probably  not? 

A.  Because  at  that  time  Big  Business  was  pri- 
marily interested  in  the  South  American  and  Central 
American  and  West  Indian  markets. 

Q.     That  is  what  it  was  after  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  at  the  time  when  President 
Wilson,  issued  his  Mexican  manifesto  to  which  I  re- 
ferred yesterday. 

Q.  You  are  satisfied  that  Big  Business  at  that  time 
did  not  want  us  to  go  into  the  war? 

A.  No,  I  don't  think  it  did,  I  don't  think  it  was  to 
the  interest  of  business  men  then  to  go  into  the  war. 

Q.  And  that  is  why  you  think  they  did  not  want 
us  to? 

A.  Well,  as  I  regard  the  economic  control,  as  I 
say  here  in  the  pamphlet  they  are  just  like  other  peo- 
ple, they  are  out  to  make  profits  and  they  will  do  the 
thing  that  will  make  the  most  profit. 

Q.     That  is  what  they  are  primarily  out  after? 

A.  They  are  primarily  out  for  profits,  they  are  not 
in  business  for  their  health,  as  they  say. 

Q.  Well,  now,  getting  down  to  the  Spring  of  1917, 
and  the  Fall  of  1916;  at  that  time  was  it  your  idea 
that  American  big  business  wanted  us  to  get  into  the 
war? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  at  the  point  where  allied  credit  was 
reaching  the  breaking  point. 

Q.  And  that  it  wanted  us  to  get  into  the  war  for 
their  own  selfish  interests? 

A.     For  their  own  selfish  reasons?    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  say,  the  business  interests  realize 
that  war  is  barbarous  and  they  would  avoid  it  if  they 
possibly  could.  They  also  believe  that  there  are  some 
things  worse  than  war :  "the  confiscation  of  special 
privileges,  the  abolition  of  unearned  income ;  the  over- 

122 


throw  of  the  economic  parasitism;  the  establishment 
of  industrial  democracy."  That  is  your  idea  of  why 
the  2%  of  the  people  wanted  us  to  go,  or  were  willing 
that  we  should  go,  into  the  war? 

A.  Not  necessarily,  that  is  my  idea  of  the  reason 
why  the  plutocracy  was  willing  to  take  war  if  neces- 
sary. There  is  a  definite  ruling  class  psychology  that 
dominates  not  only  the  rulers  themselves,  but  those 
who  work  intimately  with  them  in  their  affairs  and 
that  includes  the  professional  group  very  often.  I 
believe  that  the  members  of  the  capitalist  class  as  a 
rule  would  prefer  war  to  the  disestablishment  of 
capitalism. 

Q.  What  political  party  advocated  the  calamities 
that  you  mentioned  here,  that  is:  "industrial  democ- 
racy" and  the  "overthrow  of  economic  parasitism," 
and  the  "abolition  of  unearned  income"  and  "confisca- 
tion of  special  privileges?" 

A.  That  is  the  platform  of  the  Socialists  the  world 
over. 

Q.  And  it  is  a  platform  that  is  peculiar  to  the 
Socialist  Party,  isn't  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  what  the  Socialist  Party  stands 
for:  the  disestablishment  of  the  capitalistic  system. 

Q.  Your  argument  was  practically  or  is  practically 
that  the  capitalists,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  would  welcome 
a  war  to  save  them  from  the  calamities  denned  by  the 
Socialist  Party? 

A.  I  say  the  capitalistic  classes  would  undoubt- 
edly ;  and  I  believe  that  the  capitalists  did  that  in  Ger- 
many and  in  certain  other  European  countries. 

Q.     You  think  they  did  it  here? 

A.  No,  the  Socialist  Party  here  is  not  a  sufficient 
factor  to  be  dangerous  in  that  sense. 

Q.  So  that  you  do  not  feel  that  in  this  country  the 
capitalist  class  was  afraid  of  the  Socialist  Party? 

123 


A.     Not  yet. 

Q.     Not  at  that  time  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     I  am  speaking  of  1917? 

A.     No,  sir. 

THE  COURT:  (Addressing  spectators)  Gentle- 
men, let  us  not  overstep  the  bounds  of  decorum.  I 
have  stated  before  that  I  am  pretty  liberal,  but  you 
can  smile  without  making  a  noise  about  it. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Socialist  Party  had 
been  going  backwards,  had  it  not,  for  three  or  four 
years,  as  far  as  membership  was  concerned,  prior  to 
1917? 

A.     I  can  not  answer  that.    I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Look  at  your  Year  Book,  page  336,  and  you  will 
find  at  the  top  of  page  336,  the  percentage  of  socialist 
vote  of  the  total  vote,  and  then  in  1912  it  was  5  9/10%, 
whereas  in  1916,  it  was  only  3  2/10%  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  when  the  Socialists  voted  for 
Mr.  Wilson  because  "he  kept  us  out  of  the  war." 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  the  Socialists  voted  for 
Mr.  Wilson? 

A.     Many  of  them. 

Q.  Haven't  you  a  rule  in  the  Socialist  Party,  that 
you  have  got  to  swear  that  you  are  going  to  stand  by 
the  Socialist  Party  candidate,  you  are  going  to  sup- 
port the  Party  candidate? 

A.     That  is  like  all  other  rules. 

Q.     You  do  not  follow  your  own  rules? 

A.     Well,  we  try  to. 

Q.  Now  further  down  on  the  same  page:  "The 
wealth  of  the  country  was  vast,  enough  to  feed,  clothe, 
house  and  educate  every  boy  and  girl ;  enough  to  give 
all  of  the  necessities  and  most  of  the  simple  comforts 
of  life  to  every  family.  The  plutocrats  were  not  inter- 
ested in  these  matters  however."  Whom  do  you  mean 

124 


by  the  plutocrats  when  you  say  as  you  do  there  those 
things  and  use  that  expression? 

A.     I  mean  the  ruling  power  in  the  country. 

Q.  And  you  mean  men  of  great  wealth  like  Rocke- 
feller? 

A.  I  mean  the  men  who  were  dominating  and  di- 
recting economically,  the  public  affairs. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  those  men  were  not 
interested  in  educational  and  charitable  institutions? 

A.  Well,  educational  and  charitable  institutions 
are  merely  plasters  and  poultices  to  keep  this  kind  of 
thing  going.  I  do  not  regard  the  contributing  to  char- 
ities as  sympathetic;  I  just  regard  them  as  a  sort  of 
social  fire  insurance. 

Q.  In  other  words,  when  you  used  that  term  "plu- 
tocrats" and  said  that  they  were  not  interested  in  these 
affairs,  however,  and  after  referring  to  food  and  cloth- 
ing and  housing  and  educating  people,  you  meant 
merely  that  they  were  not  interested  in  doing  it  in 
your  particular  way? 

A.     No,  sir. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  Mr.  Nearing,  you  answer  so 
quickly,  I  don't  have  a  chance  to  object  and  I  want  to 
make  an  objection  to  the  last  question. 

I  ask  your  Honor,  that  the  witness'  last  answer  be 
stricken  out,  as  I  want  a  ruling  on  this  line  of  ques- 
tions, and  I  either  get  caught  by  the  inability  to  tell 
when  the  prosecution  has  finished  a  question,  or  by  the 
football  rush  of  the  witness  to  answer. 

Q.  On  page  11  of  the  second  paragraph  you  say: 
"Aggressive  Germany  was  the  danger  mark.  It  was 
against  her  infamous  desire  to  impose  kultur  upon  the 
world  that  America  was  urged  to  prepare  herself.  If 
was  for  this  purpose  that  the  President  signed  a  bill 
during  the  Summer  of  1916,  appropriating  $662,000,000 
for  the  army  and  navy,  a  sum  larger  than  had  ever 

125 


before  been  appropriated  for  war  purposes  by  any 
nation  in  times  of  peace.  Well  might  LaFollette  ex- 
claim in  his  speech  of  July  19th  to  20th,  1916,  opposing 
this  appropriation :  'I  object,  Mr.  President,  to  a 
game,  a  plan,  a  conspiracy,  to  force  upon  this  country 
a  big  army  and  a  big  navy  to  use  the  treasury  of  the 
country,  and  if  need  be,  the  lives  of  its  people,  to  make 
good  the  foreign  speculations  of  a  few  unscrupulous 
masters  of  finance.' " 

Now  that  was  of  course  after  Mr.  Tavenner  had 
made  his  speech  and  Mr.  LaFollette  had  made  his 
objections,  that  Congress  passed  this  legislation,  was 
it  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  it  your  idea  that  Congress,  in  passing 
legislation  and  the  President  in  signing  it,  were  acting 
in  bad  faith  or  that  they  were  not  intelligent  enough 
to  see  the  real  situation? 

A.  I  disagree  with  them  as  a  matter  of  policy.  I 
regarded  this  as  the  beginning  of  a  system  of  mili- 
tarism for  the  United  States.  I  think  that  subsequent 
events  have  more  than  justified  my  anticipation. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  though  that  they  were  act- 
ing in  bad  faith? 

A.  No,  I  think  they  were  acting  as  the  imperialists 
tried  to  get  them  to  act. 

Q.  And  you  think  they  merely  could  not  see 
the  real  truth  as  you  saw  it? 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  they  could  see  the  real 
truth  or  not;  they  were  acting  in  conformity  with  im- 
perialistic policy. 

Q.  And  you  think  Congress  and  the  President  then 
in  passing  this  legislation  were  acting  truly  as  to  what 
they  really  believed? 

A.  The  President  had  declared  emphatically  again 
and  again  against  this  kind  of  policy. 

126 


Q.     Can  not  you  answer  that  question  yes  or  no  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  has  changed  his  mind, 
I  am  not  the  interpreter  of  the  President's  conscience 
or  my  own. 

Q.     Then  you  don't  know? 

A.  And  I  never  impute  or  never  made  it  a  point  to 
give  bad  motives  to  people. 

Q.     You  don't  know? 

A.     I  don't  know  anything  about  his  motives. 

Q.  You  haven't  imputed  bad  motives  to  the  pluto- 
crats throughout  this  pamphlet? 

A.  I  don't  think  so,  I  think  I  am  characterizing 
their  actions. 

Q.  Did  not  you  tell  us  a  little  while  ago  you  didn't 
think  plutocrats  were  in  business  for  anything  except 
what  they  could  get  out  of  it? 

A.  I  think  that  the  capitalist  system  is  influenced 
often  and  mostly  by  profits,  and  I  think  the  plutocrats 
as  a  whole  are  influenced  similarly  under  a  capitalistic 
system.  There  seems  to  be  no  difference  between 
them  in  that  way. 

Q.     And  that  is  the  only  thing? 

A.  That  is  the  major  factor  in  controlling  their 
decisions. 

Q.     Is  not  that  the  only  factor? 

A.     Certainly  not. 

Q.     There  are  certain  other  factors? 

A.  There  are  certain  other  factors,  but  that  is  the 
major  factor :  the  economic  factor  is  usually  the  major 
factor  in  controlling  public  affairs. 

Q.  Now  in  the  next  chapter  we  deal  with  "patri- 
ots" and  on  page  12  you  say :  "The  price  of  flags  rose 
rapidly.  Nevertheless  the  workers  by  hundreds  of 
thousands  contributed,"  that  all  being  in  quotation 

marks, "to  provide  flags  for  the  establishments  in 

which  they  were  employed.  Men  were  discharged 

127 


\ 

when  they  refused  to  make  such  contributions."  How 
many  instances  now  to  your  personal  observation  do 
you  know  of  men  who  were  discharged  from  employ- 
ment because  they  refused  to  contribute  toward  the 
buying  of  a  flag? 

A.  I  knew  of  three  men  in  one  department  of  one 
factory ;  I  knew  of  several  scattered  instances  in  other 
shops  and  factories. 

Q.  Well,  how  many  would  you  say,  three  men  in 
one  department? 

A.  Perhaps  a  dozen  instances  come  to  my  mind, 
but  this  says  that  "men  were  discharged"  and  if  two 
of  them  had  been  discharged,  that  would  have  justified 
that  statement. 

Q.  You  think  that  statement  was  then  justified  by 
that? 

A.  I  certainly  do,  if  two  only  had  been  discharged. 
"Two"  is  "men." 

Q.  Literally  you  are  accurate.  Now  in  the  next 
paragraph,  doctor,  you  say:  "The  business  interests 
were  in  clover.  After  years  of  unpopularity,  after 
being  forced  to  endure  investigation,  criticism  and 
antagonistic  legislation,  after  being  condemned  by 
even  the  conservative  element  in  public  life  as  a 
menace  to  American  progress  and  well  being."  Will 
you  name  some  of  the  members  of  the  conservative 
element  in  public  life  who  denounced  the  business 
interests  as  a  menace  to  American  progress  and  well 
being?  Give  us  the  conservative  ones,  please. 

A.  I  would  say  Mr.  Cummins,  Mr.  Borah  and  Mr. 
Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Wilson — particularly  in  those 
phrases  that  I  quoted  from  him  yesterday. 

Q.  And  those  were  the  men  whom  you  regarded  as 
the  members  of  the  conservative  element  in  public 
life? 

A.     Decidedly  conservative.    I  would  not  call  them 

128 


Bourbons  or  Tories,  but  they  are  decidedly  conserva- 
tive. 

Q.  And  a  little  later  you  say:  "The  plutocratic 
brand  of  patriotism  won  the  endorsement  of  the 
press,"  enumerating  a  number  of  others.  This  "pluto- 
cratic brand  of  patriotism,"  I  wish  you  would  dis- 
tinguish that  from  the  democratic  brand  of  patriotism. 

A.  The  plutocratic  brand  of  patriotism  was  the 
brand  that  made  patriotism,  loyalty  to  imperialistic 
designs  and  the  imperialistic  policies,  and  having  en- 
tered on  this  propaganda  campaign,  it  was  one  of  the 
avenues  toward  imperialism,  and  plutocrats  and 
patriotism  mean  loyalty  to  imperialistic  policy  and  in 
my  judgment  that  is  not  patriotism  at  all. 

Q.  Then  it  is  your  judgment  that  the  patriotism 
advocated  by  the  preparedness  advocates,  and  the 
patriotism  advocated  after  we  entered  the  war,  by  the 
president,  was  this  plutocratic  brand  of  patriotism, 
that  is,  a  patriotism  devoted  to  imperialistic  policies  of 
this  Government? 

A.  That  brand  of  patriotism  which  is  satisfactory 
to  J.  P.  Morgan  &  Company  and  the  Standard  Oil 
Company  and  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  is 
plutocratic  patriotism,  and  that  was  the  brand  to 
which  I  am  referring,  and  it  is  not  the  brand  to  which 
I  adhere  or  subscribe. 

Q.  That  was  also  the  brand  that  the  country 
adopted  generally? 

A.     That  was  the  brand ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  imperialistic  brand,  imperialistic 
ideas? 

A.  The  imperialistic — the  war  is  a  part  of  the  im- 
perialistic policy. 

Q.  That  is  your  idea  then,  that  the  support  of  the 
war,  just  as  the  country  has  given  it,  is  in  support  of 
a  war  carrying  out  an  imperialistic  policy? 

129 


A.  Yes,  the  policy  of  imperialism.  As  far  as  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  people  is  concerned,  they  were 
simply  patriotic  and  ignorant,  they  were  patriotic  and 
enthusiastic,  and  they  did  not  understand  what  they 
were  trying  to  support. 

Q.  Now  on  the  next  page  you  say,  at  the  bottom 
of  the  page : 

"The  American  plutocracy  was  magnified,  deified 
and  consecrated  to  the  task  of  making  the  world  safe 
for  democracy.  The  brigands  had  turned  saints,  and 
were  conducting  a  campaign  to  raise  $100,000.000  for 
the  Red  Cross." 

Did  you  contribute  to  the  Red  Cross? 

A.     I  did  not. 

Q.     Either  before  we  went  into  the  war  or  after? 

A.  I  never  contribute  to  any  private  or  philanthro- 
pic or  charitable  institution.  I  regard  philanthropy 
and  charity  in  every  form  as  merely  making  the  great 
crimes,  the  crying  crimes  of  the  capitalistic  system 
more  endurable,  and  I  do  not  care  to  help  make  it  any 
more  endurable.  I  regard  the  Red  Cross  as  a  method 
of  making  war  more  endurable  and  I  do  not  care  to 
make  war  more  endurable,  because  it  is  a  crime. 

Q.  Was  it  your  idea, — will  you  say  that  this  cam- 
paign was  directed  by  H.  P.  Davison,  one  of  the  lead- 
ing members  of  the  firm  of  J.  P.  Morgan  &  Company 
— was  it  your  idea  that  his  service  in  directing  this 
campaign  was  in  pursuance  of  the  plutocracy's  con- 
spiracy to  draw  us  into  the  war? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  make  the  point  through  this  pamph- 
let that  the  business  interests  fought  for  the  war,  and 
when  the  war  came  on,  the  leading  business  men  of 
the  country  were  put  in  charge  of  all  of  the  important 
ventures  in  which  we  were  engaged,  and  this  is  one  of 
the  ventures. 

Q.     Wasn't  this  before  we  went  into  the  war  that 

130 


Mr.  Davison  took  charge  of  the  Red  Cross? 

A.  No,  I  cannot  answer  that,  I  know  he  was  in 
it  after  we  went  into  the  war  also.  He  may  have  taken 
charge  at  any  time  before  we  went  into  the  war. 
That  would  merely  prove  that  plutocracy  was  behind 
the  Red  Cross,  knowing  that  the  firm  of  J.  P.  Morgan 
&  Company  were  engaged  in  these  big  business  ven- 
tures. That  was  a  big  venture  in  the  Red  Cross,  as 
the  Red  Cross  is  interested  in  this  war  and  Big  Busi- 
ness is  interested  in  the  Red  Cross  as  Big  Business  is 
interested  in  the  Charity  Organization  Society  and 
other  philanthropic  endeavors. 

Q.  On  the  next  page,  on  page  14,  in  the  third  sen- 
tence, under  "Armed  Neutrality"  you  say: 

"Meanwhile  the  British  fleet  blockaded  Germany, 
closed  the  North  Sea,  sowed  it  with  mines,  and  refused 
to  permit  American  manufacturers  to  sell  goods  to  the 
Central  Powers.  This  constituted  a  brazen  violation 
of  international  law." 

Was  the  blockade — did  you  mean  by  that  that  you 
declared  that  the  blockade  was  a  brazen  violation  of 
international  law? 

A.  No,  but  to  sow  the  North  Sea  with  mines  was 
a  violation,  as  I  understand  international  law. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  those  mines  were  sowed 
there  by  the  British  fleet? 

A.  Well,  you  will  find  an  excellent  summary  of 
that  according  to  the  facts  contained  in  the  speech  of 
Senator  LaFollette  on  April  4th,  also  in  the  speech  of 
General  Sherwood,  about  that  same  time.  I  have  the 
speech  here. 

Q.  That  was  the  source  of  your  information,  was 
it? 

MR.  STEDMAN:    The  President  stated  it. 

MR.  BARNES:  Mr.  Stedman,  please  wait  until 
you  are  under  oath. 

131 


Q.     That  was  the  source  of  your  information? 

A.  I  don't  remember  sir,  but  these  are  authorities 
upon  which  I  would  rest  my  case. 

Q.  Those  are  the  authorities  upon  which  you  made 
these  statements? 

A.  I  just — I  stated  I  would  be  glad  to  rest  my  case 
on  them.  I  cannot  remember  whether  they  were  or 
not.  I  have  the  reference  here.  I  have  got  the  reference 
to  the  sources  of  information. 

Q.  Then  do  you  declare  that  the  blockade  on  Ger- 
many was  one  of  the  brazen  violations  of  international 
law? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  say  so  far  as  it  was  an  effort  to  starve 
the  civilian  population,  I  believed  it  was  a  violation 
of  international  law  as  I  understood  it  at  that  time. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  in  the  Civil  War,  the 
North  declared  a  blockade  upon  the  South? 

A.  Did  they  do  that  in  an  effort  to  starve  the 
civilian  population? 

Q.  I  am  not  on  the  stand.  I  would  like  to  say  "yes" 
to  that,  though. 

A.  I  don't  know  sir,  but  if  it  did,  I  believe  that  con- 
stituted a  violation  of  the  accepted  common  interna- 
tional law,  and  if  the  law  does  not  cover  that  it  cer- 
tainly should. 

Q.  Then  you  say  you  believe  this  is  a  violation  of 
international  law? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  investigation  did  you  make  of  the  sub- 
ject before  you  wrote  these  words,  "This  constituted 
a  brazen  violation  of  international  law?" 

A.  Why,  I  stated  two  of  my  authorities,  and  I  also 
had  a  couple  of  courses  of  it  in  college,  in  international 
law,  and  know  something  about  it  in  a  general  way. 

132 


Q.  Now,  Mr.  Nearing,  referring  to  page  19  of  the 
pamphlet,  under  the  caption,  of  "The  2nd  of  April," 
you  state  that  in  the  Spring  of  1917,  the  credit  of  the 
Allies  was  strained  to  the  breaking  point  and  their 
resources  were  at  very  low  ebb. 

What  data  did  you  have  from  which  you  came  to 
that — upon  which  you  based  that  statement? 

A.  I  referred  yesterday  to  a  couple  of  letters  by 
a  firm  by  the  name  of  Henry  Clews  &  Company.  At 
this  time,  the  submarine  sinkings,  if  I  remember, 
amounted  to  about  500,000  tons  a  month — they  were 
sinking  vessels  faster  than  the  British  or  the  Allies 
were  building  them,  and  we  heard  tales  at  this  time, 
that  in  England  there  was  the  necessity  of  putting  the 
population  on  a  bread  card  system.  And  I  might  say 
that  I  ordinarily  read  at  least  two  financial  papers 
every  week,  and  tried  to  keep  in  pretty  close  touch 
with  these  changing  situations. 

Q.  On  page  20,  the  second  paragraph,  you  say: 
"The  great  neutral  faced  the  test  of  possible  commer- 
cial disaster.  A  hundred  millions  of  people  in  the 
balance  counted  as  nothing  against  the  menace  of  eco- 
nomic losses."  Did  you  mean  by  that,  that  Congress 
and  President  Wilson  weighed  economic  losses 
against  the  lives  of  one  hundred  millions  of  people 
and  decided  in  favor  of  avoiding  economic  losses? 

A.  I  should  not  say  against  the  lives  of  one  hun- 
dred million  people.  I  should  say  against  the  well 
being  of  the  people;  and  I  believe  that  the  economic 
considerations  were  primary. 

Q.  That  is,  they  weighed  the  economic  considera- 
tions against  the  well  being  of  one  hundred  millions  of 
people  and  decided  in  favor  of  the  economic  considera- 
tions? 


133 


A.  Well,  I  cannot  say  whether  they  weighed  it  or 
not,  but  I  believe  that  the  decision  was  in  favor  of 
the  economic  considerations  and  against  the  people. 

Q.  Then  you  say,  "The  President  without  any 
authority  from  Congress,  armed  the  merchant  ships 
and  gave  Bernstorff  his  papers."  As  a  matter  of  fact. 
President  Wilson  gave  von  Bernstorff  his  papers  some 
time  prior  to  that,  in  which  the  armed  neutrality  ques- 
tion arose,  didn't  he? 

A.  Yes.  That  should  probably  have  preceded  the 
other,  preceded  the  giving  of  von  Bernstorff  his  papers. 
That  should  probably  have  come  in  before  the  armed 
merchant  ships  subject. 

Q.  It  should  not  even  have  come  in  this  section 
at  all,  should  it,  the  "2nd  of  April  ?" 

A.  Well,  it  is  a  section  dealing  with  the  events  that 
led  up  to  that  period.  I  think  that  it  is  the  logical  place 
for  it,  yes. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  date  that  von  Bernstorff 
was  given  his  papers? 

A.     I  think  it  was  in  February,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

O.  Then  you  say,  "The  business  interests  went 
wild  with  joy." 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  next  portion  of  that,  you  quote  from 
"Finance  and  Commerce"  of  February  7,  1917,  the 
fact  that  flags  were  put  out  on  Wall  Street.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  don't  you  know  that  the  Stock  Market  took 
a  violent  break  at  the  time  of  the  severance  of  diplo- 
matic relations  with  Germany? 

A.  The  fact  to  which  I  refer  is  contained  in  this 
quotation  from  "Finance  and  Commerce"  a  Wall 
Street  publication. 

Q.  Cannot  you  answer  my  question,  doctor :  don't 
you  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  Stock  Market 
had  a  violent  break  upon  the  announcement  of  the 

134 


severance  of  diplomatic  relations  with  Germany? 

A.     I  do  not. 

Q.  Was  it  your  idea  that  the  reason  why  people 
put  out  the  flags  in  Wall  Street,  was  because  they 
were  glad  that  we  were  at  war  with  Germany,  or  they 
wanted  to  show  their  loyalty  to  this  country? 

A.  I  believed  that  the  Wall  Street  interests,  had 
been  trying  very  hard  for  months  to  get  into  the  war, 
and  I  believe  that  they  were  interested  and  missed  no 
opportunity  to  expend  energy  in  getting  this  country 
into  the  war. 

Q.  But  you  do  make  the  statement  that  the  reason 
why  Wall  Street  put  out  these  flags  was  because  it 
was  glad? 

A.  Yes,  I  say  the  business  interests  were  wild  with 
joy,  and  that  confirmed  it. 

Q.  That  showed  their  wildness  of  joy,  by  putting 
out  their  flags  as  you  have  indicated? 

A.  Yes,  as  their  publication  says,  "in  twenty 
minutes  Wall  Street,  from  Trinity  Church  to  South 
Street  was  bedecked  like  on  a  holiday."  It  was  a 
holiday  for  them. 

O.  Columbus  Avenue  was  also  bedecked,  wasn't 
it? 

A.     Within  twenty  minutes?    I  don't  know. 

Q.     Within  twenty-four  hours? 

A.  I  don't  know ;  I  was  not  in  New  York  at  that 
time. 

Q.     You  didn't  raise  any  flags  where  you  were? 

A.     I  beg  your  pardon? 

Q.  Were  not  there  any  flags  raised  where  you 
were? 

A.  Yes,  but  they  were  not  in  the  way  that  is  indi- 
cated by  the  quotation  here.  This  is  a  financial  paper, 
you  know. 

O.     Now,  turn  to  page  22,  or  rather  to  the  bottom 

135 


of  page  21,  you  say: 

"On  April  6th,  with  the  passage  of  the  Resolution 
declaring  the  existence  of  a  state  of  war,  the  American 
people  found  themselves  in  war,  after  returning  a 
party  to  power  only  five  months  before  because  it  had 
'kept  us  out  of  war' "  and  then  you  say : 

"The  people  were  not  consulted,  their  wishes  were 
not  considered." 

"No  popular  referendum  on  the  war  was  even  pro- 
posed by  the  Administration." 

How  many  wars  have  we  engaged  in  in  our  history? 

A.     I  think  five  major  wars. 

Q.     What  were  they? 

A.  The  Revolutionary  War,  War  of  1812,  the 
Mexican  War,  the  Civil  War,  and  the  Spanish-Ameri- 
can War. 

Q.  In  the  Revolutionary  War  was  there  any  refer- 
endum, popular  referendum  as  to  whether  we  would 
go  to  war  or  not? 

A.  I  should  say  that  a  revolution  is  a  popular  refer- 
endum. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  mean  by  a  popular  refer- 
endum, you  meant  a  vote,  didn't  you? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Was  there  any  vote  taken  in  the  Revolution 
that  you  know  of,  as  to  whether  or  not  we  should  have 
a  revolution? 

A.  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  vote  on  a  revolution, 
Mr.  Barnes. 

Q.  How  many — I  am  simply  asking  you  whether 
you  know? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q.     What  was  the  next  one? 

A.     The  War  of  1812. 

O.     Was  there  a  referendum  on  that? 

A.     No,  sir. 

136 


Q.     What  was  the  next  oner 

A.     The  Civil  War. 

Q.     Any  referendum  on  that? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     What  was  the  next  war? 

A.     Spanish-American  War. 

Q.     Any  referendum  on  that?  • 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  familiar  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  aren't  you? 

A.     I  am. 

Q.  And  that  it  does  not  provide  for  a  referendum 
on  the  question  of  war? 

A.     No ;  neither  does  it  prohibit  it. 

Q.     I  asked  you  does  it  provide  for  a  referendum? 

A.  It  does  not  provide  for  it  and  it  does  not  pro- 
hibit it,  sir. 

Q.  Does  not  it  provide  that  war  shall  be  declared 
by  Congress? 

A.  Yes,  it  does  so  provide,  but  this  was  declared 
by  the  President. 

Q.     Was  not  this  war  declared  by  Congress? 

A.  No.  sir,  it  was  not  declared  by  Congress.  The 
President  said  on  April  2nd,  four  days  before  Congress 
voted  on  the  question,  he  said  in  his  speech,  "In  the 
war  in  which  we  are  now  engaged." 

Q.     But  they  did  vote  on  it  ultimately? 

A.     Yes ;  ultimately,  yes. 

Q.  From  what  you  know  of  it,  what  was  the  vote 
on  it? 

A.  About  twenty  to  one,  something  like  that,  I 
understand. 

Q.  Then  it  was  voted  for  by  the  Constitutional 
representatives  of  the  people  of  the  United  States? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     In  Congress  assembled? 

137 


A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  war  was  declared  in  the  constitutional 
manner  by  the  representatives  of  the  majority,  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  representatives  of  the 
electorate,  was  it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  but  they  however,  decided  it  previous 
to  a  referendum. 

Q.  Is  there  any  provision  in  the  Constitution  for 
a  referendum? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     About  going  to  war? 

A.  I  thought  this  war  was  more  democratic  be- 
cause the  President  had  said  so. 

Q.     I  see. 

A.  In  other  words,  I  believed  that  we  might  have 
shown  our  good  faith  in  democracy,  by  having  a  refer- 
endum on  it  at  this  time. 

Q.  In  other  words,  in  your  opinion,  Mr.  Nearing, 
it  would  have  been  a  nice  thing,  or  a  proper  thing,  or 
an  expedient  thing,  or  a  good  thing,  or  a  democratic 
thing,  to  have  declared  this  war  in  a  different  way 
than  the  other  wars  had  been  declared? 

A.  In  my  judgment,  if  they  had  had  a  referendum 
at  this  time,  the  vote  would  have  been  very  over- 
whelmingly against  going  into  the  war. 

Q.     In  your  judgment? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  The  duly  authorized  representatives  in  Con- 
gress assembled  did  not  represent  their  constituents? 

A.  I  believed  they  did  not  represent  the  body  of 
their  constituents. 

Q.     That  is  your  judgment? 

A.  They  were  whipped  into  line  by  methods  which 
were  notorious  at  the  time. 

Q.     That  is  your  judgment? 

A.     No,  that  is  something  that  was  expressed  in  the 

138 


newspapers,  too. 

Q.     That  is,  newspaper  stories? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Now  a  little  further  down  on  the  same  page  you 
say, — speaking  of  the  advisory  commission  to  the  coun- 
sel, that  it  was  the  business  interests  that  had  in  charge 
this  matter  for  the  Government,  you  said,  "The  four 
business  men,  constituting  the  majority,  will  have 
practical  charge  of  directing  the  expenditure  of  the 
billions  of  dollars  that  the  American  people  will  put 
into  this  war." 

Does  that  occur  to  you  as  a  remarkable  provision  or 
an  extraordinary  provision,  that  business  men  should 
be  in  charge  of  the  expenditure  of  money? 

A.     No,  unavoidably  so  under  the  present  system. 

Q.  And  didn't  you  think  that  that  was  much  better 
than  having  politicians  have  charge  of  it? 

A.  As  to  whether  the  thing  was  better  or  worse,  I 
would  not  judge.  I  would  say  it  was  not  quite  typical 
to  let  business  men  have  charge,  for  I  do  not  think 
that  politicians  were  competent  to  have  charge. 

Q.  You  think  the  business  men  were  more  com- 
petent? 

A.     Undoubtedly  they  knew  the  game. 

Q.     More  competent,  even,  than  college  professors? 

A.     Undoubtedly. 

Q.  On  the  next  pages,  pages  23  and  24,  you  state 
there  the  circumstances  in  which  they  are  placed  at 
the  head  of  these  different  committees,  the  committees 
on  express,  committees  on  shoe  and  leather  industry, 
supplies,  copper,  etc.,  that  the  men  selected  to  serve 
did  serve  with  the  heads  of  the  great  businesses  and 
industries  of  that  character.  Don't  you  think  that  that 
was  a  better  way  of  doing  it  than  to  have  the  office 
boys  or  the  subordinates  of  those  businesses  in  those 
positions? 

139 


A.  I  should  have  liked  to  have  seen  experts  con- 
tinued in  charge  by  the  Government,  and  some  expert 
engineers  and  expert  scientists,  non-controlling  fac- 
tors in  the  business.  I  should  have  liked  to  see 
the  labor  unions  represented  in  some  cases,  that  would 
have  been  a  more  democratic  way  because  business 
men  make  up  about  one-tenth  of  the  population,  and 
the  working  people  about  nine-tenths. 

Q.  You  did  feel,  however,  did  you  not,  that  it  was 
more  apt  to  be  an  efficiently  conducted  war,  purely 
from  an  efficient  standpoint,  understand,  if  the  heads 
of  these  great  concerns  served  in  these  capacities? 

A.  Well,  I  should  say  that  undoubtedly  yes,  as 
they  would  conduct  the  war  better  for  their  own  pur- 
poses. There  was  a  concrete  instance  brought  up  on 
the  Standard  Oil  Company 

Q.  I  am  speaking  about  the  efficiency  of  the  con- 
duct of  the  work. 

A.  From  the  business  standard,  it  would  have  un- 
doubtedly been  more  efficient. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  mean.  Now  going  over  to  the 
Liberty  Loan  chapter  on  page  26,  you  say : 

"Some  day  when  all  of  the  facts  are  collected,  the 
story  of  the  sale  of  the  Liberty  Loan,  will  be  told,  and 
it  will  be  as  hateful,  as  barbarous  and  as  brutal  as  any 
event  since  the  war  contracts  of  the  Spanish-American 
War." 

What  investigation  did  you  make  of  the  facts  sur- 
rounding the  sale  of  the  Liberty  Loan? 

A.  Well,  sir,  that  was  a  particularly  sore  subject 
at  that  time  in  Toledo,  where  I  was.  I  was  in  very 
close  touch  with  the  labor  unions  over  there,  and  I 
knew  a  large  number  of  the  men  and  women  who  were 
compelled  to  buy  bonds  against  their  own  wishes. 

Q.  How  many  men  did  you  know  personally  who 
were  compelled  to  buy  bonds  against  their  wishes? 

140 


A.     Well,  I  could  not  enumerate  them. 

Q.     Well,  is  there  a  dozen,  or  was  there  a  dozen? 

A.     Probably  more  than  that. 

Q.     Were  there  twenty? 

A.  Possibly.  I  might  also  say  that  the  New  York 
"Call"  had  very  extended  stories  at  the  time,  describing 
such  conditions. 

Q.     You  do  not  consider  that  an  authority? 

A.     Undoubtedly. 

Q.  Well,  were  there  one  hundred  which  you  knew 
personally,  who  were  compelled  to  buy  bonds? 

A.     Probably  not. 

Q.  Probably  not.  How  many  were  there  subscrib- 
ers to  the  loan? 

A.     Several  millions. 

Q.  Several  millions.  And  you  have  only  given  us 
three  instances  here :  one  of  a  girl  who  worked  as  an 
expert  at  $100  a  month.  What  was  her  name? 

A.     I  prefer  not  to  state  it. 

Q.     You  know  her? 

A.     I  do. 

Q.     Did  she  live  in  Toledo? 

A.     In  Pittsburgh. 

Q.     Pittsburgh? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     What  does  she  work  at? 

A.     She  was  an  expert  on  adding  machines. 

Q.     An  expert  on  adding  machines? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     And  she  got  $100  a  month? 

A.     I  believe  so. 

Q.  And  when  she  was  approached  she  said  if  she 
had  to  buy  a  bond,  she  would  give  up  her  job? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Nobody  ever  said  to  her  anything  else  on  the 
subject? 

141 


A.     Nothing  more. 

Q.  Was  that  in  your  opinion  a  sample  of  a  trbar- 
barous  and  hateful"  coercion  by  the  capitalistic  class? 

A.  That  was  an  excellent  example  of  industrial 
tyranny,  only  it  didn't  work  out. 

Q.  Only  it  didn't  work  out.  Now  the  next  little 
girl  was  one  who  was  working  for  $7  a  week? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     That  was  a  pretty  poor  job? 

A.     That  was  a  Department  Store  job. 

Q.     That  is  a  pretty  poor  job? 

A.  Pretty  poor?  That  was  about  the  average  for 
a  girl  worker  in  the  department  stores. 

Q.     Do  you  know  that  girl? 

A.  I  did  not,  but  a  friend  of  mine  did  know  her  in 
Cleveland. 

Q.     And  the  friend  of  yours  told  you  about  it? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  they  took  two  dollars  a  week  from  that 
girl's  salary? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  that  magnificent  salary  of  $7  a  week  they 
took  the  $2? 

A.     She  subscribed  two  dollars. 

Q.     She  subscribed  two  dollars? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  And  then  one  day  they  took  all  the  rest  of  it, 
for  the  Red  Cross? 

A.     She  subscribed  to  the  Red  Cross  that  week. 

Q.  And  she,  I  take  it,  with  this  magnificent  job, 
continued  to  work  because  she  was  afraid  of  losing  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  she  was  rather  a  young  girl,  and  for 
a  girl  of  her  age,  and  experience,  $7  a  week  was  good 
wages  at  that  time. 

Q.     That  was  a  good  job,  was  it? 

A.     Well,  it  was  about  $7  a  week  at  that  time,  which 

142 


was  about  the  average  woman's  wage. 

Q.  And  the  next  one  was  a  man  with  a  family, 
sick  for  three  months,  who  was  advised  that  it  would 
be  wise  for  him  to  buy  a  liberty  bond? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Did  you  know  that  man? 

A.     I  did,  in  Toledo. 

Q.     Did  you  know  who  advised  him? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  the  man  who  advised  him,  advise  him 
it  was  a  good  thing,  or  bad,  or  what  was  the  circum- 
stances ? 

A.  It  was  his  immediate  superior  in  his  depart- 
ment. 

Q.  He  came  to  him  and  told  him  that  it  would  be 
a  good  idea  for  him  to  buy  a  bond? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     Is  that  all? 

A.  Bearing  in  mind,  all  the  time,  the  fact  that  he 
had  ever  before  him  what  had  happened  to  other  peo- 
ple who  did  not  buy  bonds,  so  he  bought  one. 

Q.  So  that  in  that  instance  the  man  who  was  his 
superior  officer,  or  who  was  superior  to  him,  came  to 
him  and  said,  "I  think  it  would  be  a  good  idea  for 
you  to  buy  a  bond?" 

A.     Something  to  that  general  effect. 

Q.     To  the  general  effect? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  the  idea,  and  that  is  conversa- 
tion with  the  man  who  owns  your  job,  remember  that. 

Q.  Did  the  man  who  gave  him  this  advice,  know 
about  the  fact  of  his  financial  difficulties? 

A.     I  do  not  know. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know,  he  was  not  aware  of  the 
fact  that  this  man  was  in  debt,  etc? 

A.  These  matters  are  not  taken  into  consideration 
in  these  cases. 

143 


Q.  And  they  are  not  taken  into  consideration  by 
you  in  writing  these  things,  in  this  pamphlet,  are  they, 
that  is  you  didn't  make  any  investigation  of  those  cir- 
cumstances before  writing  this  pamphlet? 

A.  I  don't  get  you.  I  don't  understand  your  ques- 
tion. 

Q.  I  say,  you  did  not  make  any  investigation  of  the 
circumstances  as  to  whether  or  not  the  man  advised — 
the  man  who  was  advising  this  fellow  to  buy  a  bond, 
knew  of  the  man's  finances,  his  financial  position? 

A.     I  did  not. 

Q.     Before  you  wrote  the  pamphlet? 

A.     I  did  not. 

Q.  So  that  you  base  this  statement,  practically, 
upon  personal  knowledge  of  possibly  twenty  to  forty 
or  possibly  one  hundred  cases? 

A.     And  the  stories  that  were  being  told. 

Q.  Whereas  the  total  number  of  subscribers  were 
several  millions? 

A.  And  the  stories  that  were  being  told  in  the 
newspapers  and  the  Socialist  paper,  and  some  of  them 
were  in  the  New  York  "Call,"  and  other  papers  that 
were  telling  the  truth  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  believe  everything  that  you  read  in  the 
"Call?" 

A.  I  don't  believe  everything  I  read  in  any  news- 
paper. 

Q.     Not  even  in  the  "Call?" 

A.     Not  even  in  the  "Call." 

Q.  Well,  you  must  have  felt  very  sorry  for  these 
poor  people  all  over  the  country  who  had  been  com- 
pelled to  buy  bonds? 

A.     That  is  the  reason  I  wrote  this  pamphlet. 

Q.     You  felt  very  sorry  for  them  ? 

A.  I  thought  that  they  had  been  seriously  imposed 
on,  yes,  sir. 

144 


Q.  And  yet  you  wanted  the  Government  to  repu- 
diate the  bonds,  didn't  you? 

A.     Repudiation  of  bonds 

Q.  Didn't  you  want  the  Government  to  repudiate 
the  Liberty  Loan,  and  didn't  you  so  testify  this  morn- 
ing? 

A.  I  made  no  such  statement,  I  said  simply  that 
the  Socialist  Party  believed  in  the  repudiation  of  all 
forms  of  indebtedness,  and  any  indebtedness  that  en- 
abled someone  to  live  on  other  people's  labors,  and 
that  included  any  form  of  indebtedness,  whether  pub- 
lic or  private. 

Q.  And  that  involved  these  people  whom  you  were 
telling  us  about  here,  who  were  compelled  to  buy  these 
bonds  ?  And  you  would  like  to  see  a  government  in  the 
United  States,  that  would  repudiate  the  First  Liberty 
Loan,  wouldn't  you? 

MR.  STEDMAN  :    I  object. 

A.     That  loan  and  all  loans,  public  and  private. 

Q.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  that  loan  is  held,  as 
you  have  testified  it  was  your  belief,  by  millions  of 
people  who  bought  it  under  coercion? 

A.  A  tiny  fraction  of  it  is  held  by  them,  the  vast 
majority  of  it  is  held  by  the  rich  people,  in  my  judg- 
ment. 

These  three  and  one-half  per  cent,  bonds  have  been 
bought  up  in  the  past  months  by  the  rich  people  from 
those  who  originally  bought  them,  bought  up  by  these 
wealthy  people  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  taxation. 

Q.  And  it  was  disposed  of  by  these  same  people  at 
a  pretty  good  figure,  wasn't  it? 

A.     Some  of  them  were,  I  guess. 

Q.     Now  on  the  next  page,  you  state : 

"When  the  Conscription  Bill  was  introduced  in  the 
Congress,  there  was  a  general  feeing  throughout  the 

145 


country  that  it  would  not  pass.  Even  the  press  hesi- 
tated, so  un-American  was  this  bill,  which  clearly  vio- 
lated the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  traditions 
of  American  life." 

Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Selective  Draft  Act  has  been  sustained  by  every 
court  before  which  it  has  been  tried? 

A.  I  am  sir,  but  that  does  not  in  any  way  change 
my  opinion  of  the  bill. 

Q.     You,  of  course,  are  not  trained  in  the  law? 

A.     No,  sir,  but  I  have  read  the  Constitution. 

Q.  You  read  to  us  yesterday  from  the  speech  by 
Daniel  Webster,  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
1814? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  Judge  Mayer  brought  out  that  that  speech 
was  made  during  a  debate,  the  first  day  of  the  debate, 
I  believe,  upon  that  bill? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  And  Daniel  Webster  told  them  that 
if  they  passed  the  bill  he  would  go  back  and  tell  his 
constituents  to  refuse  to  support  it. 

Q.     He  did? 

A.     He  did. 

Q.  Were  you  under  the  impression  you  were  fol- 
lowing in  the  steps  of  Daniel  Webster  during  the  Sum- 
mer of  1917? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  was  not  under  the  impression  that  I 
was  impersonating  Webster.  But  he  was  interpreting 
the  Constitution,  as  I  understood  the  Constitution,  and 
I  thought  he  was  a  good  constitutional  lawyer,  and 
knew  what  he  was  talking  about,  and  it  sounded 
sensible  to  me,  and  I  believed  that  it  was  sensible. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  the  proper  action  for  a  man 
to  take,  to  go  back  to  his  constituents  and  tell  them 
not  to  obey  anything  that  has  become  a  law,  that  has 
been  passed  by  Congress? 

146 


A.  It  is  entirely  up  to  the  man  himself,  what  he 
shall  do. 

O.     I  say,  do  you  approve  of  that? 

A.  Do  you  mean,  did  I  approve  of  it  in  Daniel 
Webster's  case? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.  If  I  felt  that  way,  I  would  do  exactly  the  same 
thing,  in  other  words,  I  would  live  up  to  my  beliefs. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  The  question  that  the  District  Attorney  asked 
you  was  whether  you  favored  that  position,  if  it  was 
so  taken  by  Mr.  Webster? 

A.  I  answered,  sir,  that  I  believed  that  a  man  must 
live  up  to  his  convictions,  and  that  if  Mr.  Webster 
believed  that,  it  was  up  to  him  to  go  and  do  it.  If  you 
ask  me  whether  I  would  go  home  and  urge  my 
constituents  to  violate  the  law,  in  that  case  I  answer 
I  cannot  tell ;  as  I  feel  at  present  I  would  not. 

BY  MR.  BARNES: 

Q.  Let  us  have  that  speech  of  Daniel  Webster. 
I  want  to  see  the  language  he  used. 

A.  "I  would  ask,  sir,  whether  the  supporters  of  these 
measures  have  well  weighed  the  difficulties  of  their  under- 
taking. Have  they  considered  whether  it  will  be  found 
easy  to  execute  laws  which  bear  such  marks  of  despotism 
on  their  front,  and  which  will  be  so  productive  of  every 
thought  and  degree  of  misery  in  their  execution?  For  one, 
sir,  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  they  cannot  be  executed.  No 
law  professedly  passed  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  a  ser- 
vice in  the  regular  army,  not  any  law,  which  under  the  color 
of  military  draft  shall  compel  men  to  serve  in  the  army, 
not  for  the  emergencies  mentioned  in  the  constitution,  but 
for  longer  periods  than  for  the  general  objects  of  the  war, 
can  be  carried  into  effect.  The  operation  of  measures  thus 
unconstitutional  and  illegal,  ought  to  be  prevented  by  a 
resort  to  other  measures  which  are  both  constitutional  and 
legal.  It  will  be  the  solemn  duty  of  the  state  governments 
to  protect  their  own  authority  over  their  own  militia,  and 
to  interpose  between  their  citizens  and  arbitrary  power. 

147 


These  are  among  the  objects  for  which  the  state  govern- 
ments exist,  and  their  highest  obligations  bind  them  to  the 
preservation  of  their  own  rights  and  liberties  of  their  people. 
I  express  the  sentiments  here,  sir,  because  I  shall  express 
them  to  my  constituents.  Both  they  and  myself  live  under 
a  constitution  which  teaches  us  that  'the  doctrine  of  firm 
resistance  against  arbitrary  power  and  oppression  is  absurd, 
slavish,  and  destructive  of  the  good  and  happiness  of  man- 
kind' with  the  same  earnestness  with  which  I  now  exhort 
you  to  forbear  from  these  measures,  I  shall  exhort  them  to 
exercise  their  unquestionable  right  of  providing  for  the 
security  of  their  liberties." 

And  as  I  understand  that,  he  meant  that  he  would 
exhort  his  state  government  to  oppose  the  national 
government  in  the  enforcement  of  this  law. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  understand  him  to  mean  by  that, 
that  he  would  exhort  them  to  refuse  to  obey  the  law, 
or  counsel  them  to  fight  it  in  a  legal  manner  through 
the  courts? 

THE  WITNESS:  May  I  see  the  pamphlet? 
(handed  witness). 

"Laws,  sir,  of  this  nature  can  create  nothing  but  oppo- 
sition. If  you  scatter  them  abroad  like  the  fabled 
serpent's  teeth,  they  will  spring  up  into  armed  men.  A 
military  force  cannot  be  raised  in  this  manner  but  by  the 
means  of  a  military  force.  If  the  administration  has  found 
that  it  cannot  form  an  army  without  conscription,  it  w  11 
find,  if  it  venture  on  these  experiments,  that  it  cannot  en- 
force conscription  without  an  army." 

Now  if  that  does  not  support  my  statement,  then 
the  further  statement  that  I  read  awhile  ago,  that 
"these  laws,  if  passed,  cannot  be  executed,"  seems  to 
me  does  warrant  the  statement  that  I  made  that  Mr. 
Webster  proposed  to  go  back  home  and  agitate  for 
resistance  to  this  law. 

Q.  Now  on  page  29  you  quote  from  the  Chicago 
Tribune  of  June  6th,  the  day  following  registration, 
to  the  effect  that  the. "draft  success  puts  new  life  in 
New  York  market."  Did  you  follow  the  prices  on  the 

148 


Stock  Market,  or  do  you  follow  them,  or  have  you  fol- 
lowed them  during  this  period  of  time,  from  1906  on 
down  to  date? 

A.     To  the  present  time? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  aware,  are  you  not,  that  prices  of 
stocks  reached  their  highest  point  about  the  1st  of 
December  1916? 

A.     Thereabouts,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  during  December,  Secretary  Lansing 
made  a  statement,  that  we  were  on  the  verge  of  war. 
Do  you  remember  that? 

A.     I  don't  recall  that.     No,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  there  was  a  break  in  the  market  im- 
mediately following  that  statement? 

A.     I  don't  recall  that  incident.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Now  is  it  not  true  there  was  a  break  in  the 
market  about  the  2nd  of  February,  at  the  time  of  the 
severing  of  the  diplomatic  relations? 

A.  I  quoted  this  from  the  Wall  Street  Digest,  yes- 
terday, "The  upward  movement  in  the  price  of  stocks 
dates  from  the  day  that  the  German  Ambassador  at 
Washington,  was  handed  his  passports  and  although 
there  have  been  slight  temporary  reactions,  the  move- 
ment has  been  fairly  continuous  from  that  day  to  this." 

Q.  Was  not  there  a  break  in  the  Stock  Market, 
quite  a  violent  break  on  the  date  that  the  German  Am- 
bassador was  handed  his  passports? 

A.  This,  that  I  was  quoting  you  here,  was  from  the 
official  organ  of  the  Street,  and  tells  of  the  general 
tendency  of  the  stock. 

Q.  Was  not  there  a  violent  break  on  that  date,  and 
was  not  there  a  drop  of  ten  points  in  Steel? 

A.     I  don't  remember  that. 

Q.     You  don't  remember  that? 

140 


A.  I  don't  remember  that,  I  am  simply  quoting  you 
from  this  statement  here. 

Q.     On  page  39,  the  second  paragraph,  you  say : 

"By  July,  1917,  the  billboard  enlistment  campaign  was 
couched  in  such  words  as  'The  Regulars  are  in  France, 
Join  them  Now.'  'Enlist  immediately  so  as  to  fight  on 
German  and  not  on  the  United  States  soil.'  The  German 
autocracy  was  on  the  defensive;  the  American  plutocracy 
had  become  the  aggressor.  The  regular  army  had  already 
been  transported  four  thousand  miles  and  a  conscript  army 
of  a  million  men  was  in  process  of  formation  to  wage  an 
aggressive  war  in  the  interests  of  the  British  ruling  classes." 

Now,  up  to  this  point,  as  I  understood  your  argu- 
ment, the  war  was  in  the  interest  of  the  American 
ruling  classes.  Do  you  mean  by  that,  that  they  were 
mistaken,  and  it  was  for  the  British  ruling  classes,  or 
do  you  mean  by  that,  that  they  were  all  working  to- 
gether? 

A.  I  should  say,  sir,  that  the  American  banking  and 
financial  interests  came  to  the  rescue  of  the  British 
banking  and  financial  interests. 

Q.  So  that  the  American  plutocracy  had  got  us 
into  this  war  and  did  it  to  help  the  British  ruling 
classes? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  they  came  to  the  rescue  of  the  Birtish 
financiers  when  they  were  at  the  breaking  point,  as 
I  stated  at  an  earlier  section.  Certainly  it  was  a  dis- 
tinct help  to  the  ruling  classes  of  Great  Britain  when 
we  joined  hands  with  them. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  Let  me  inject  a  question :  When  you  wrote  this 
about  this  advertising  as  seen  on  these  various  bill- 
boards, where  was  that? 

A.     That  was  in  Toledo. 

Q.     I  say,  you  had  seen  these  billboards? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Those  billboards,  putting-  the  matter  briefly, 
were  appealing-  to  enlist? 

150 


A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  to  enter  voluntarily,  as  distin- 
guished from  entering  under  the  Selective  Service 
Law? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

O.  And  were  there  many  such  billboards  in 
Toledo? 

A.  Well,  they  had  one  by  the  old  post  office  and 
one  by  the  new  post  office. 

Q.  In  other  words,  it  was  pretty  generally  plac- 
arded? 

A.     Quite  generally. 

Q.     Did  they  have  recruiting  stations? 

A.     Oh,  yes, 

Q.  With  men  in  the  service  of  the  Government, 
endeavoring  to  get  volunteers? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  addresses  in  public  places  by 
civilians  and  soldiers,  appealing  to  persons  to  enlist? 

A.  I  don't  think  there  were  any  such  meetings 
going  on,  no. 

Q.     There  was  a  general  campaign? 

A.     There  was  a  billboard  campaign. 

Q.     All  over  the  town? 

A.  All  over  the  city,  and  the  reason  that  I  put  it 
in  here  was  because  it  was  a  campaign  requesting  men 
to  enlist  for  the  foreign  war. 

Q.  And  before  you  wrote  "The  Great  Madness"  did 
you  see  similar  billboards  in  other  parts  of  the  coun- 
try that  you  were  in,  do  you  claim  that? 

A.     Probably,  but  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  have  no  doubt  they  were  in  other  parts  of 
the  country? 

A.     I  presume  there  were,  yes. 

BY  MR.  BARNES  : 

Q.     Now  the  next  chapter  is  on  page  40,  entitled, 

151 


"Root  and  Balfour,"  and  you  speak  there  of — it  is  near 
the  bottom  of  the  page — "Elihu  Root  was  sent  to  the 
democracy  of  Russia  to  warn  them  not  to  go  too  far 
in  the  direction  of  their  democratic  ambitions  and 
ideals."  You  are  referring  there  to  the  commission 
that  was  sent  over  by  the  Federal  Government,  the 
Federal  Commission? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  to  the  Revolutionary  Government. 

Q.  One  of  the  members  of  the  Commission  was  a 
Socialist  was  he  not,  Mr.  Russell? 

A.     He  was,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  he  was  the  candidate  of  the  Socialist  Party 
for  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States,  wasn't  he? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  beg  your  pardon,  it  was  for 
the  Governorship  of  New  York  State. 

Q.     The  Governorship  of  New  York  State? 

A.     He  was. 

Q.     At  any  rate  he  was  a  prominent  Socialist? 

A.     He  was,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  what  information  or  data  did  you  have, 
what  inside  "dope"  as  we  might  say,  Mr.  Nearing,  on 
which  you  based  your  statements  that  Root  was  sent 
there  to  warn  them  not  to  go  too  far  in  the  direction 
of  their  democratic  ambitions  and  ideals? 

A.  Well,  I  had  the  speeches  that  Root  and  the 
other  members  of  the  Commission  are  reported  to  have 
made  after  they  had  got  over  there. 

Q.  Now  at  page  42  you  were  telling  us  what  the 
American  business  interests  had  won,  you  say :  "They 
had  won  the  right  to  send  a  million  Americans  to  the 
trenches  of  France  to  fight  for  the  poor  Belgians,  for 
Lombard  Street,  Wall  Street,  and  King  George  of 
England."  Lombard  Street — what  do  you  infer  by 
that? 

A.     I  mean  the  financial  section  of  England. 

Q.     That  is  the  Wall  Street  of  England,  I  suppose? 

152 


A.     Yes,  sir. 

O.     And  the  next,  you  say  in  the  next  paragraph : 

"They  had  established  a  spirit  that  permitted  chil- 
dren to  go  back  into  the  factories  from  which  years  of 
incessant  labor  had  rescued  them ;  women  to  take 
men's  jobs  at  a  fraction  of  the  wage,  and  the  standards 
surrounding  the  labor  of  men  to  be  lowered." 

Now  will  you  please  tell  us  what  data  you  based 
that  on? 

A.  I  based  that  on  the  data — well,  there  are  three 
different  statements  there. 

Q.  All  right,  take  the  first  one :  "Children  to  go 
back  into  the  factories." 

A.  The  first  statement,  or  rather  the — yes,  the  first 
statement  was  based  on  the  fact  that  immediately  after 
war  was  declared  there  was  a  general  campaign  in- 
augrated  all  over  the  country  in  the  big  industrial 
states,  to  abrogate  the  law,  set  aside  the  laws  regard- 
ing the  work  of  women  and  children,  and  the  Federal 
Children's  Bureau  and  the  National  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee both  went  into  that  question  and  both  of  them 
made  reports  regarding  the  increase  of  the  employ- 
ment of  children. 

Concerning  the  second  statement  regarding  the 
wages  of  women,  the  committee  presented  data  of  the 
situation  in  that  regard,  showing  that  women  entered 
into  these  various  situations  at  a  wage  scale  much 
lower  than  that  which  was  the  standard  wage  of  the 
men. 

And  the  statement  as  regards  the  excessive  hours  of 
labor  and  the  like,  referred  to  war  work  that  was  being 
done  overtime. 

Q.  Now  are  you  familiar  with  the  article  in  the 
American  Labor  Year  Book  of  1917-1918  at  pages  16, 
17  to  20,  by  Mr.  Solon  DeLeon,  which  covers  these 
particular  questions? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  am  not  familiar  with  it. 
153 


Q.  Well,  are  you  familiar  with  the  attitude  taken 
by  President  Wilson  and  by  the  Federal  authorities 
with  regard  to  this  lowering  of  standards  of  labor,  and 
the  employment  of  child  labor  in  the  factories,  and  the 
use  of  women  at  a  fraction  of  the  wage?  You  are 
familiar  with  that? 

A.     As  I  recall,  they  were  strongly  opposed  to  it. 

Q.     They  did  successfully  oppose  it? 

A.     They  did  not  successfully  oppose  it. 

Q.  They  did  as  far  as  the  Federal  enactment  was 
concerned  ? 

A.  They  did  not  oppose  it  as  far  as  the  factories 
were  concerned. 

Q.  Did  not  they  as  far  as  the  Federal  law  was  con- 
cerned ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  know ;  but  I  know  that  statistics 
have  recently  appeared  covering  that  particular  period, 
showing  that  child  labor  has  increased  decidedly  dur- 
ing the  war.  I  might  also  say  that  the  minimum 
standards  of  the  working  classes  have  been  lowered 
also. 

Q.  Do  you  know  there  has  been  any  systematic 
lowering  of  it  ? 

A.     There  has,  yes,  sir. 

Q.     In  the  factories,  do  you  mean? 

A.  Yes,  the  child  labor,  especially  in  factories,  has 
increased  greatly. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  Governor  Whit- 
man of  New  York  vetoed  a  bill,  the  Brown  Bill,  on  that 
same  subject? 

A.     I  don't  remember  when  he  vetoed  the  bill. 

Q.  Then  this  article  in  the  American  Labor  Year 
Book  which  covers  the  period  from  March  to  Septem- 
ber, is  not,  or  is  it,  in  your  opinion,  an  exhaustive 
statement  of  the  legislation  on  these  points? 

A.     Well,  sir,  I  have  not  read  it  and  I  cannot  say. 

154 


Q.  How  many  states  were  there  that  altered  their 
laws  to  your  knowledge? 

A.     That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.     Well,  what  States  did? 

A.  I  have  not  the  data,  I  could  not  give  you  any 
particular  case. 

Q.  Of  course  the  labor  authorities  did  oppose  it 
vigorously,  did  they  not? 

A.     Oh,  yes,  you  mean  the  labor  unions? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.     Well,  I  assume  so,  yes. 

Q.  Well,  they  did,  didn't  they?  Don't  you  remem- 
ber they  did? 

A.  Well,  there  was  opposition,  I  don't  remember 
whether  they  did  it. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  on  April  7th,  the  Council 
of  National  Defense  approved  resolutions  drawn  up 
by  the  advisory  committee  on  labor,  of  its  advisory 
commission,  urging  upon  the  legislatures  of  the  States 
as  well  as  all  administrative  agencies  charged  with  the 
enforcement  of  labor  and  health  laws,  the  great  duty 
of  rigorously  maintaining  the  existing  safeguards  as 
to  the  health  and  the  welfare  of  the  workers;  but  also 
urging  upon  the  legislatures  that  before  final  adjourn- 
ment they  delegate  to  the  Governors  of  their  respec- 
tive States,  the  power  to  suspend  or  modify  restric- 
tions contained  in  their  labor  laws,  when  requested  by 
the  Council  ? 

MR.  STEDMAN:  You  are  reading  from  page 
what? 

MR.  BARNES :    Page  16,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page. 

Q.     Did  you  know  that? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  don't  remember  this,  not  these  spe- 
cific details. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  on  April  23rd  the  "Secre- 
tary of  Labor  Wilson  had  a  conference  of  Cabinet 

155 


Officers  and  Labor  representatives,  explained  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Council  of  National  Defense  to  be  that  the 
standards  that  have  been  established  by  law,  by  mutual 
agreement  or  by  custom,  should  not  be  changed  at  this 
time."  Did  you  know  that? 

A.  I  said  that  I  knew  that  the  Government  took 
that  position,  I  didn't  remember  the  specific  details. 

Q'.  Did  you  know  that  Secretary  Daniels  had  taken 
the  same  position? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  special  officials.  I  know 
the  Government  officially  took  that  position. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  Prior  to  your  writing  the  publication,  "The 
Great  Madness,"  did  you  know  of  any  law  that  had 
passed  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  which  in 
any  manner  had  changed  the  wage  standards  of  labor- 
ing people? 

A.     No,  I  believe  Congress  passed  no  such  law. 

BY  MR.  BARNES: 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Congress  did  pass  a  Child 
Labor  Law,  did  it  not,  which  was  afterwards  declared 
unconstitutional  ? 

A.  I  think  that  was  passed  before  the  1916  Elec- 
tion, because  I  think  that  the  Democrats  used  that  in 
their  election  propaganda. 

Q.  I  think  you  are  right.  It  was  before — between 
1914  and  1916? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  I  think  about  in  1916. 

Q.  Now,  at  the  bottom  of  page  43,  Mr.  Nearing, 
you  say,  "Today,  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States  they 
are  banding  themselves  together  politically  and  in- 
dustrially. They  are  organizing.  They  propose  to 
make  the  world  safe  for  democracy."  Whom  did 
you  mean  by  "they"? 

A.  That  is  answered  in  the  paragraph  above — 
"The  People  of  the  United  States." 

Q.     The  people  of  the  United  States? 
156 


A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  to  what  political  and  industrial  bands  or 
organizations  do  you  refer  when  you  said  they  were 
organizing? 

A.  Why,  I  was  referring  to  the  growth  at  that  time 
of  the  Socialist  Party  in  membership,  it  was  growing 
at  that  time,  and  to  the  growth  of  the  trade  unions, 
they  had  grown,  and  they  were  growing  a  great  deal 
at  that  time,  and  have  grown  very  much  since,  also 
to  the  growth  of  the  Non-Partisan  League,  the  Farm- 
ers' movement,  which  was  growing  very  rapidly  at 
that  time. 

Q.  Now  you  say  at  the  top  of  the  next  page,  "The 
struggle  must  begin  in  the  United  States."  Did  you 
mean  by  that,  that  the  pressure  of  the  plutocrats  in 
the  United  States  was  the  first  step  that  the  people 
were  to  take  to  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  if  we  are  going  to  have  democracy  in 
the  world,  we  have  got  to  begin  at  home  and  have  it 
at  home. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  that  they  should  undertake  that 
immediately  or  that  they  should  wait  until  the  end  of 
the  war? 

A.  Well,  in  my  judgment,  the  war  is  an  incident 
to  the  economic  conflict,  because  I  believed  the  work- 
ing class  had  to  keep  on,  during  the  war  and  before 
the  war  and  after  the  war,  in  preserving  their  own 
standards  and  safeguarding  their  own  rights. 

Q.  You  mean  then  that  they  should  undertake  that 
while  the  war  was  on,  or  whether  they  should  post- 
pone it  until  the  war  was  over? 

A.  Certainly,  they  should  work  at  it  all  the  time. 
The  problem  of  establishing  industrial  democracy  is 
a  problem  that  goes  on  continually  with  the  wage 
earner;  it  has  gone  on  before  the  war,  it  has  gone  on 
during  the  war  and  it  has  gone  on  since. 

157 


Q.  And  when  you  sent  this  manuscript,  "The  Great 
Madness"  to  the  Rand  School,  you  realized  if  it  was 
published,  it  would  be  distributed  and  circulated, 
didn't  you?  Throughout  the  country,  didn't  you? 

A.     Certainly. 

Q.  And  that  it  would  come  into  the  hands  of  men 
who  were  subject  to  induction  into  the  army  under 
the  Selective  Service  Act,  men  between  twenty-one 
and  thirty? 

A.     I  suppose  so. 

Q.  And  you  wanted  to  persuade  your  readers  to 
your  own  point  of  view  about  the  war,  didn't  you? 

A.  I  wanted  to  present  to  my  readers  my  opinion 
regarding  the  whole  incident  of  the  war,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  that  for  the  purpose  of  persuading 
them? 

A.  If  they  saw  it  my  way,  I  expected  them  to  ac- 
cept it. 

Q.     And  you  wanted  them  to  accept  it,  didn't  you? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  You  wanted  them  to  believe  this  way,  that  this 
was  an  unjust  war,  didn't  you? 

A.  I  wanted  them  to  believe  that  this  was  a  cap- 
italist war. 

Q.     And  that  it  was  an  unjust  war? 

A.     As  all  wars  are  unjust,  yes. 

Q.  You  wanted  them  to  believe  that  it  was  waged 
in  the  interests  of  selfish  plutocratic  classes,  didn't 


you 


A.     Primarily  so,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  it  was  not  a  war  to  make  the  world 
safe  for  democracy,  was  not  that  what  you  wanted 
them  to  believe,  that  it  was  not  a  war  to  make  the 
world  safe  for  democracy? 

A.  I  did  not  then  believe  that  it  was  a  war  to  make 
the  world  safe  for  democracy,  and  I  wanted  other 

158 


people  to  see  that  it  was  not  a  war  to  make  the  world 
safe  for  democracy. 

Q.  You  wanted  these  people  to  read  your  pamph- 
lets? 

A.  I  wanted  the  people  to  read  the  pamphlets  and 
realize  that  it  was  a  war  that  was  being  continued  by 
the  plutocrats,  and  for  their  own  selfish  ends  to  fasten 
their  hold  on  the  American  people. 

Q.  And  you  used  the  best  arguments  that  occurred 
to  you  to  prove  your  point? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  I  got  the  best  data  I  could. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  you  might  persuade 
some  of  your  readers  to  your  point  of  view? 

A.  I  hoped  somebody,  after  they  read  it,  would  see 
my  point  of  view. 

Q.     You  thought  they  would,  didn't  you? 

A.     They  usually  do,  some  of  them. 

Q.  You  thought  your  arguments  were  pretty  good, 
didn't  you? 

A.     I  still  think  so,  and  I  did  then. 

Q.  Was  it  your  belief,  or  was  it  not  your  belief, 
that  if  it  might  persuade,  that  is,  if  you  might  persuade 
by  your  pamphlets,  some  of  these  people  to  your  point 
of  view  with  regard  to  the  war,  men  who  were  within 
the  draft  age,  and  who  were  subsequently  inducted 
into  the  army,  that  they  would  become  insubordinate? 

A.  I  should  say  on  the  contrary,  sir,  that  the  mil- 
lions of  socialists  who  fought  in  this  war,  and  who 
held  that  view,  were  not  any  less  insubordinate  than 
the  other  fellows,  certainly  not  more  so. 

Q.  Yes,  but  I  know,  they  were  not  American  sol- 
diers, were  they? 

A.  No,  but  a  Socialist  is  a  Socialist,  whether  he 
speaks  American  or  French.  The  Socialists  who  had 
been  fighting  in  the  war,  to  my  knowledge,  were  just 
as  reliable  as  the  other  fellows  they  were  fighting  with 

159 


in  the  war.  I  see  no  reason  to  believe  that  a  man  who 
had  these  convictions  would  make  any  worse  soldier — 
I  think  he  would  make  a  whole  lot  better  brother  for 
the  great  brotherhood  that  is  coming  later  on  in  the 
world — but  I  do  not  know  that  he  would  be  any  worse 
as  a  soldier  in  this  country. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  and  didn't  you  think  that  a 
man  believing  this  way,  that  the  war  was  a  selfish 
capitalistic  war  for  the  capitalistic  interests,  and  that 
he  was  being  brought  into  it,  that  he  would  be  apt 
to  be  disloyal  to  his  country,  in  the  sense  of  the  word 
ordinarily  used,  of  the  word  disloyalty? 

A.  On  the  contrary,  I  know  many  men  who  were 
drafted  and  went,  and  others  that  certainly  had  that 
point  of  view  in  their  minds. 

Q.  And  you  did  hope,  that  by  reading  this,  they 
would  get  your  point  of  view  about  the  war  then,  and 
then  you  say  you  think  that  they  would  be  just  as 
loyal  soldiers? 

A.  I  was  not  attempting  to  make  either  loyal  sol- 
diers or  disloyal  soldiers. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  that  sir,  I  asked  you  whether 
you  gave  any  thought  to  the  subject? 

A.     I  don't  recall  that  I  did. 

Q.     Then  you  did  not  think  anything  about  it? 

A.     I  don't  recall  that  I  did. 

Q.     Did  you   not  believe,   Mr.    Nearing,   that   this 
pamphlet  would  probably  fall  into  the  hands  of  men 
who  were  debating  as  to  whether  or  not  they  would 
enlist  in  the  army,  voluntarily? 
x  A.     I  had  no  such  knowledge  either  way. 

Q.     Didn't  you  think  about  it? 

A.     I  do  not  recall  that  I  did. 

Q.  That  never  occurred  to  you,  is  that  right,  it 
never  occurred  to  you? 

A.     I  don't  recall  that  it  did.     I  might  say  again, 

160 


Mr.  Barnes,  that  I  wrote  this  pamphlet,  to  try  to  edu- 
cate people.  I  had  no  particular  point  of  view  with 
regard  to  men  or  persuading  soldiers  or  anybody  else, 
I  wanted  the  people  to  understand  what  was  going  on. 

Q.  But  you  would  feel,  would  you  not,  that  if  this 
were  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  man  who  was  con- 
templating enlisting,  was  turning  the  matter  over  in 
his  mind,  and  he  was  persuaded  by  your  arguments, 
he  would  not  enlist,  you  feel  that  way  about  it?  That 
would  be  its  natural  effect,  wouldn't  it? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  want  to  object  to  that  as  in- 
competent, irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  improper. 

THE  COURT:  He  may  ask  him  if  that  was  his 
belief.  Did  you  so  believe? 

THE  WITNESS:  I  don't  recall  that  I  had  any 
such  belief,  no,  sir.  In  other  words,  I  was  not  aiming 
this  pamphlet  particularly  at  the  army.  If  I  had  been, 
I  would  have  printed  a  different  kind  of  leaflet.  I 
would  not  have  sold  it  through  the  Rand  School  where 
it  went  out  for  general  circulation  to  a  very  small  num- 
ber of  people,  about  20,000. 

Q.  Went  out  to  a  group  of  people,  however,  who 
were  subject  to  the  draft? 

A.  Possibly.  I  was  not  in  a  position  to  know 
whether  they  were  or  not,  sir. 

Q.  To  a  group  of  people  who  would  be  eligible  to 
enlist? 

A.  Possibly.  I  was  not  in  a  position  to  know  that 
either,  any  more  than  I  would  know  whether  one  of 
my  text-books  would  be  read  by  man,  woman  or  child, 
whether  they  were  under  forty  years  of  age,  or  over 
forty  years  of  age. 

Q.  Do  not  you  know,  that  most  of  the  Socialists  in 
this  country  are  between  the  ages  of  18  and  40  years? 

A.  I  have  not  ever  seen  a  statement  as  to  their 
ages. 

161 


Q.  Don't  you  know  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
most  of  the  Socialists  in  this  country  are  between  18 
and  45? 

A.  Most  of  the  people  in  this  country  are  between 
18  and  45. 

Q.  And  most  of  the  people  who  are  in  the  circle 
of  your  acquaintance  are  between  the  ages  of  18  and 
45? 

A.     I  am  also  between  18  and  45. 

Q.     And  so  am  I. 

A.  And  most  of  your  friends  are  between  18  and 
45  then,  I  may  assume. 

Q.  You  still  feel  that  you  were  right  in  the  position 
you  took,  in  this  pamphlet,  Mr.  Nearing? 

A.  I  certainly  believe — I  do  believe  that  the  Amer- 
ican plutocracy  wanted  the  war,  and  they  advocated 
it,  and  made  the  war,  and  they  had  the  war,  and  it  was 
an  imperialistic  war,  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  the 
imperialistic  point  of  view  in  the  United  States. 

Q.  You  still  believe,  do  you,  that  you  were  right 
in  the  position  that  you  took  in  this  pamphlet? 

A.     That  was  the  position  of  the  pamphlet. 

Q.  Cannot  you  answer  the  question  yes  or  no. 
then? 

A.  Well,  the  trouble  in  answering  a  question  like 
that  yes  or  no,  is  that  my  own  position  in  the  pamphlet 
may  be  is  not  clear,  and  I  wanted  to  state  my  position 
in  the  pamphlet. 

Q.  You  think  that  your  position  in  the  pamphlet 
is  not  clear? 

A.     It  seemed  to  me  that  it  was,  sir. 

Q.  I  think  it  is  very  clear.  You  still  believe  you 
were  right  in  the  efforts  you  made  to  spread  this  view 
among  the  people  during  the  Summer  of  1917? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  believe  that  is  the  correct  view,  for 
the  people  of  the  United  States  to  take. 

162 


Q.     You  think  you  were  right  in  spreading  it? 

MR.  STEDMAN:     He  has  said  so. 

THE  COURT:     He  has  not  yet. 

THE  WITNESS:     Yes,  sir,  I  thought  I  said  yes. 

O.  Well,  would  you  again,  in  case  we  had  another 
war,  advise  them  in  the  same  way? 

MR.  STEDMAN:     Oh,  I  object  to  that  as  highly 
speculative  as  to  whether  he  would  do  it  again. 
'THE  COURT:     Objection  sustained. 

MR.  BARNES:     That  is  all. 

THE  COURT :  I  will  ask  you  a  few  questions  so 
that  you  may  on  redirect  ask  him  any  questions  that 
you  desire. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  Now,  did  you  follow,  that  is,  with  reasonable 
care,  the  different  events,  such  as  the  declaration  of 
war  and  the  passage  of  the  selective  draft  act,  etc.? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  I  followed  them  very  carefully. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  of  course,  you  realized,  when 
you  wrote  this  pamphlet,  that  war  had  been  declared, 
on  the  6th  day  of  April  1917? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  remembered,  when  the  selective  draft  law 
was  passed  and  became  an  act?  Perhaps  I  can  help 
you.  Was  it  May  18,  1917? 

A.  Yes,  I  remember  the  5th  day  of  June  was  the 
registration — yes,  May,  1917. 

Q.  And  you  remember  that  under  the  statute,  the 
5th  day  of  June,  1917,  was  designated  as  the  day  for 
registration  of  those  subject  to  the  draft  under  the 
Presidential  rules  and  proclamations? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  the  method  of  draft  was,  to  briefly 
state  it,  choose  the  men  by  numbers  which  were 
chosen  by  lot? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 


Q.  And  that  there  was  an  elaborate  machinery, 
which  was  arranged  by  the  appropriate  federal  offi- 
cials in  respect  to  the  induction  of  men  into  the  army, 
that  is  to  say,  local  boards,  district  boards,  and  the 
Provost  Marshal's  rules  and  regulations,  and  the  like? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  do  you  know  when  the  actual  induction 
into  the  army  began  under  the  selective  draft  law? 

A.     I  do  not  remember,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  recall  it  began,  if  my  recollection 
is  right,  in  September,  1917,  is  that  correct? 

MR.  BARNES:  I  think  it  is  in  August,  probably 
the  end  of  August  or  beginning  of  September. 

Q.  Well,  August  or  September,  then  you  remem- 
ber that,  do  you  not? 

A.     I  noticed  it  at  the  time ;  I  do  not  recall  the  date. 

Q.  Now  intervening  the  time,  between  the  passage 
of  the  Selective  Draft  Act  and  the  time  that  you  wrote 
"The  Great  Madness"  had  you  noticed  that  there  were 
appeals  for  the  enlistment  and  volunteer  service — I 
think  you  gave  some  statement  about  that. 

A.     I  noticed  it,  yes. 

Q.  And  during  that  summer,  where  were  you?  In 
the  early  part  in  Toledo  and  in  the  later  part  in  Chau- 
tauqua,  New  York? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.  At  some  time,  to  some  extent  you  knew,  I  as- 
sume, that  the  Government  was  doing  all  in  its  power 
to  get  men  to  go  into  the  army  forces,  the  military  and 
the  naval,  through  the  agency  of  voluntary  enlistment, 
did  you  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  method  was  carried  out  by  the  bill- 
board advertisement  type  of  campaign  that  you  have 
referred  to,  and  by  public  meetings,  was  it  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

164 


Q.  And  at  these  public  meetings,  various  persons 
spoke  to  the  point  of  endeavoring  to  have  persons  vol- 
unteer and  enlist? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  while  there  was  a  general 
concurrence  in  spirit  and  action  throughout  the  coun- 
try, of  obedience  to  the  Selective  Service  Act,  that 
there  were  some  who  were  disposed  to  dispute  it? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  kept  in  touch,  and  any  track  of  the 
public  trials  of  those  who  were  charged  with  disobedi- 
ence in  one  form  or  another  of  that  act? 

A.  Why,  I  don't  recall  that  any  came  before  the 
writing  of  this  pamphlet.  Of  course,  I  have  observed 
the  conscientious  objector  since, — I  don't  know 
whether  the  issue  had  been  raised  then  or  not. 

Q.  Well,  there  were  some,  but  that  is  neither  here 
nor  there.  Well,  did  you  know  that  there  were  those 
throughout  the  country  who  were  not  obeying  the 
law,  but  who  were  acting  in  opposition  to  the  act? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  have  all  of  this  information  to 
which  I  have  referred  in  my  questions,  and  which  you 
have  answered,  before  you,  or  in  your  mind,  at  the 
time  that  you  wrote  this  pamphlet? 

A.     Probably,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  mean  to  say,  you  were  fully  cognizant  of  that 
situation? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  have  any  knowledge  as  to  whether 
there  were  any  males  of  any  age,  who  were  in  the 
mental  position  of  doubt  in  regard  as  to  what  course 
they  should  pursue  in  respect  of  service  in  the  army? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  That  I  want  to  object  to  as  in- 
competent. 

THE  COURT:     He  can  say  yes  or  no. 

165 


MR.  STEDMAN:     Exception. 

A.     Yes,  sir,  I  did  know  that  fact. 

Q.  Had  any  such  persons  come  within  your  per- 
sonal observation? 

A.     They  had. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  you  know  actually,  male  human 
beings  who  were,  to  put  the  matter  in  colloquial  lan- 
guage, "on  the  fence"  as  to  service? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Just  a  moment,  do  not  answer 
until  I  get  a  chance  to  object  to  the  questions,  espe- 
cially those  that  relate  to  special  incidents.  I  would 
like  to  have  the  benefit  of  an  objection  to  that  last 
answer  if  I  may  have,  which  I  suppose  will  be  over- 
ruled and  then  I  would  like  the  benefit  of  an  exception. 
I  am  objecting  to  the  special  instance  that  may  be  in 
a  man's  mind. 

THE  COURT:  Very  well.  We  will  put  it  gen- 
erally. 

Q.  What  was  your  general  information,  of  action 
taken  by  John  Jones,  or  by  Peter  Smith? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  The  point  I  have  in  mind  is  this, 
that  a  man  might  know  someone  among  his  acquaint- 
ances, he  might  be  writing  a  book,  and  he  might  im- 
personate that  man,  and  that  would  suggest  the  answer 
to  any  such  suggestion  as  that. 

THE  COURT :  I  think  you  may  be  right  as  to  that 
and  that  is  the  reason  I  changed  the  question  to  the 
general  question. 

Q.  Was  it  your  belief  at  the  time  that  there  were 
those  in  the  country,  repeating  the  colloquial  expres- 
sion, who  were  "on  the  fence"  as  to  whether  or  not 
they  should  volunteer  and  enlist  in  the  armed  forces 
of  the  United  States? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     That  is  your  belief? 

166 


A.     Yes,  sir,  that  there  were  such  people. 

Q.     That  there  were  such  people? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  there  were  people 
who  were,  for  one  reason  or  another,  resisting  the 
Selective  Service  Act,  refusing,  upon  one  ground  or 
another,  to  obey  its  provisions,  insofar  as  induction 
into  the  service  was  concerned? 

A.  Yes,  I  remember  that  particularly  in  the  South- 
west. 

Q.     You  knew  there  were  such? 

A.     There  was  such  agitation. 

Q.  By  knowing,  of  course,  I  mean  in  this  case  in- 
formation that  you  gathered  from  reading  the  papers, 
of  conversations,  or  any  other  method  of  getting  in- 
formation? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  at  this  time,  that  there  were 
people  in  the  United  States,  who  were  resisting,  I 
don't  mean  resisting  by  argument,  I  mean  actually  re- 
sisting by  refusal  to  obey  the  selective  service  act  upon 
one  ground  or  another? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  there  were  such,  I  believe,  particularly 
in  the  Southwest.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  agitation 
at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  such  information,  that  is,  of 
such  position  on  the  part  of  the  persons  subject  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act  in  other  parts vof  the  country? 

A.  I  think  the  Becker  trial  took  place  in  New  York, 
I  don't  remember  when.  I  remember  that  specifically, 
that  is  a  case,  but  I  do  not  remember  whether  there 
were  any  other  illustrations  that  came  up  at  that  time 
or  not. 

Q.  You  are  now  referring  to  the  trial  of  Becker 
and  Kramer? 

A.     Becker  and  Kramer. 

167 


Q.     Do  you  remember  any  other  public  trial  ? 

A.  I  suppose  there  were  trials  at  the  time,  but  I 
have  forgotten. 

Q.  There  were,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  at 
the  time  you  wrote  "The  Great  Madness"  that  is,  that 
you  knew  that  fact,  that  that  was  a  fact  at  that  time, 
and  it  was  your  belief  that  there  were  in  the  country 
those  who  opposed  by  refusal  to  obey  the  selective 
draft  act  and  those  who  were  debating  whether  or  not 
they  would  volunteer  or  enlist  in  the  armed  forces  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEDMAN : 

Q.     You  wrote  that  pamphlet  when? 

A.     Probably  in  June,  July,  and  August. 

Q.  The  Becker  trial  took  place  in  September,  three 
months  after,  so  you  did  not  have  that  in  mind? 

THE  COURT :  You  are  not  correct  as  to  that,  you 
are  in  error  as  to  that  statement. 

MR.  STEDMAN:    When  was  it? 

THE  COURT:  The  Becker  trial  took  place  in 
July  of  1917. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  What  part  of  July,  do  you 
know  ? 

THE  COURT :  It  was  either  at  the  end  of  June  or 
the  early  part  of  July. 

A.  I  might  say,  Mr.  Stedman,  that  I  do  not  recall 
those  events  in  the  Summer  in  any  clear  sequence.  I 
remember  instances,  but  I  do  not  remember  the  se- 
quence. 

Q.  The  resistance  in  the  Southwest,  I  suppose  you 
have  in  mind  the  instance  in  Oklahoma,  haven't  you? 

A.     I  think  it  was  in  Oklahoma. 

Q.     Do  you  know  when  that  took  place? 

A.     I  don't  remember. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  whether  it  was  before  this 
pamphlet  was  ever  printed  or  not,  do  you? 

168 


A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  now  that  you  had  that  intent  in 
mind,  at  the  time  you  were  writing  any  part  or  portion 
of  "The  Great  Madness"? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  The  registration  was  in  June,  on  June  5th,  and 
the  first  call  was  in  August.  Let  me  ask  you  whether 
the  incident  in  Oklahoma  of  the  dozen  or  two  who  had 
resisted  there,  was  not  after  the  call? 

A.  Well,  I  do  not  know.  I  have  no  recollection  as 
to  the  exact  date.  I  have  a  recollection  that  the  papers 
carried  a  great  many  stories,  I  think  it  was  about 
Arkansas  and  Oklahoma.  I  remember  reading  the 
stories,  but  I  do  not  remember  the  dates. 

Q.  Now  then,  referring  to  the  people  that  you  in- 
quired about,  who  were  "on  the  fence."  Were  they 
on  the  fence,  to  your  knowledge,  because  of  any  judg- 
ment based  upon  the  cause  or  the  reasons  of  the  war, 
or  because  of  conscientious  doubts,  or  by  reason  of 
fear  or  other  things  of  that  sort? 

A.  I  knew  a  number  of  people  who  have  since  be- 
come conscientious  objectors,  who  were  then  not  con- 
scientious objectors. 

Q.  And  a  conscientious  objector  would  not  be 
caused  by  your  pamphlet? 

A.  I  am  saying,  that  I  took  the  position  through- 
out of  always  refusing  to  advise  anybody.  I  stated — 
and  I  stated  this  to  Government  agents,  who  came  and 
asked  my  advice,  that  I  did  not — that  I  would  not  ad- 
vise any  other  man  as  to  a  matter  of  conduct  in  so 
important  a  case.  I  carried  that  to  the  extent  of  never 
advising  a  man  even  to  jeopardize  his  job.  I  think  it 
is  up  to  a  man  to  make  up  his  own  mind  on  those  mat- 
ters. I  think  it  is  a  matter  on  which  he  must  come  to 
his  own  conclusions. 

Q.     You  stated  something  about  some  of  your  evi- 

169 


dence,  that  is  some  of  the  facts  upon  which  you  based 
your  pamphlet,  not  being  here.  Was  your  home  raided 
or  searched? 

A.  By  a  United  States  Government  official,  yes, 
sir. 

MR.  BARNES:  You  mean  raided?  What  do  you 
mean  by  raided? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  mean  you  came  in  and  helped 
yourself  without  so  much  as  an  invitation,  or  a  sug- 
gestion that  you  were  violating  a  man's  home  or  his 
castle. 

MR.  BARNES:  I  object  to  any  such  questions.  I 
object  to  the  question  and  move  to  strike  it  out.  I 
understood  the  term  "raided"  as  he  was  using  it, 
meant  to  convey,  searched  by  virtue  of  a  search  war- 
rant. 

THE  WITNESS :  They  brought  a  search  warrant 
with  twenty-six  sections  in  it,  Mr.  Barnes. 

THE  COURT:  The  question  can  be  amended  so 
as  to  limit  the  answer. 

MR.  STEDMAN :    I  will  change  the  question. 

MR.  BARNES:  Was  your  home  searched  under  a 
warrant  ? 

THE  WITNESS:  Yes,  sir,  with  twenty-six  sec- 
tions in  the  warrant. 

Q.     They  came  there  with  a  warrant? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  And  they  took  away,  did  they  take  anything 
away  with  them? 

A.  I  was  not  home  at  the  time,  I  was  in  Chautau- 
qua  at  the  time,  and  my  home  was  in  Toledo,  and  they 
took  away  a  great  deal  of  stuff. 

Q.  Any  data  that  was  used  for  this?  Have  you 
asked  them  to  return  any  of  it? 

A.  They  returned  the  material,  about  three,  or  four 
months  ago,  I  think. 

170 


Q.  Well,  have  you  had  occasion  to  go  over  the  data 
since  its  return,  since  they  have  returned  the  material  ? 

A.     The  material  that  they  returned? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.     I  have  not. 

MR.  BARNES:  Was  there  any  of  the  data  that  I 
asked  you  for  on  cross-examination  in  this  stuff  that 
the  employees  of  the  Government  took  away  from 
you? 

THE  WITNESS:  Probably  not.  I  would  like  to 
say  in  reply  to  that  question,  Mr.  Barnes,  that  in  writ- 
ing a  pamphlet  of  this  character,  I  ordinarily  have  a 
number  of  reference  works  like  statistics  and  abstracts 
and  the  World  Almanac  and  various  other  reference 
works,  to  refer  to,  and  when  I  get  together  a  particular 
body  of  information  I  cannot  say  two  years  afterwards 
where  I  got  it  all. 

Q.  Your  attention  was  called  this  morning  to  a 
paragraph  in  the  platform  of  the  Socialist  Party.  That 
is  distinguishable  from  the  proclamation  and  war  pro- 
gram, is  it  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  that  section  that  was 
referred  to,  upon  bonds,  was  eliminated  from  that 
platform? 

MR.  BARNES  :  That  is  objected  to  as  incompetent, 
irrelevant  and  immaterial. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  You  have  read  it  as  though  it 
was  a  necessary  document  to  be  introduced  in  this 
case. 

MR.  BARNES:  I  have  read  a  portion  of  it,  and 
I  have  asked  him  if  he  agreed  with  these  various  parts, 
and  asked  him  for  his  frame  of  mind  in  regard  to  them, 
and  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  party  changed  his  po- 
sition on  that  or  not  later;  we  went  into  it  simply  to 
get  his  frame  of  mind  in  1917. 

171 


THE  COURT :  I  agree  with  your  proposition.  At 
the  same  time,  in  order  to  clear  the  proposition  up, 
I  will  allow  the  answer. 

Q.  I  will  just  ask  you,  Mr.  N  earing,  do  you  know 
whether,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  that  was  circulated 
by  the  party,  that  clause  was  omitted? 

A.     I  believe  it  was;  yes. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  in  regard  to  Webster, 
I  understand  that  while  you  would  not  adopt  that 
course  as  you  understand  it,  yet  the  man  was  to  do 
what  he  personally  thought  was  right? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  one  of  the  most  important 
things  is  that  a  man  should  live  up  to  his  convictions. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  wrote  "The  Great  Madness" 
do  you  recollect  that  "The  American  Socialist"  had  a 
circulation  of  a  couple  of  hundred  thousand  ? 

A.     Something  like  that,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  at  that  time,  that  is  in  August 
particularly,  or  July,  there  were  a  large  number  of 
meetings,  at  least  in  the  Middle  West  and  the  West, 
and  petitions  requesting  Congress  to  repeal  the  Selec- 
tive Draft  Law? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  petitions  were  quite 
general  ? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     Do  you  know  whether  the  pages  of  that  paper 
are  open  to  you  ? 

A.     "The  American  Socialist?" 

Q.    Yes. 

A.     They  were. 

Q.  You  could  have  written  a  pamphlet  against 
conscription — I  mean  in  opposition  to  the  draft  law, 
or  in  opposition  to  recruiting  and  enlistment,  and  also 
to  the  creating  of  insubordination  and  disloyalty,  and 
assuming  that  that  accorded  with  the  views  of  the 

172 


publisher,  they  would  have  furnished  you  the  avenue 
of  publication,  wouldn't  they? 

MR.  BARNES:  I  certainly  object  to  that  ques- 
tion. 

THE  COURT :     I  do  not  see  how  that  is  material. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  It  has  this  significance,  I  want 
to  call  attention  to  the  facilities  for  publishing  his 
views  in  a  way  that  it  would  have  gotten  before  the 
public  in  a  paper  where  in  a  publication  of  46  pages, 
in  a  leaflet,  it  would  not,  naturally  get  so  fully  into 
the  hands  of  the  people  who  would  be  likely  to  resist 
the  selective  act,  or  enlistment.  If  that  was  his  pur- 
pose, it  would  be  done  by  a  circulating  medium  that 
would  have  200,000  readers  at  least,  and  not  such  a 
limited  number. 

THE  COURT:  Objection  sustained  on  the  ground 
it  is  immaterial. 

MR.  STEDMAN:     And  argumentative. 

THE  COURT:  I  am  glad  you  added  another 
ground. 

Q.  Were  there  other  papers  at  the  time  that  you 
were  writing  for? 

A.  Well,  I  do  not  write  for  any  paper  regularly, 
but  I  wrote  at  intervals  for  a  number  of  them. 

Q.  And  your  "Great  Madness"  was  sold  for  ten 
cents  a  copy,  wasn't  it? 

A.     I  believe  so,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Speaking  of  Child  Labor  Laws,  there  were 
quite  a  number  introduced,  that  is,  bills  to  repeal  the 
operation  of  the  Child  Labor  Laws,  weren't  there? 

A.     They  were  quite  generally  introduced,  yes,  sir. 

Q.     And  it  was  during  the  war? 

A.     Immediately  after  it  broke  out. 

Q.  And  the  Child  Labor  Law  was  declared  uncon- 
stitutional, that  is,  the  National  Child  Labor  Law? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

173 


Q.  That  was  the  law  to  prohibit  interstate  com- 
merce in  child  labor  manufactured  articles? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

MR.  BARNES:  But  it  will  be  re-enacted  again, 
though. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Oh,  no,  it  will  be  in  quite  a  dif- 
ferent form. 

MR.  BARNES :    For  the  same  purpose,  however. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  The  court  has  not  passed  on  it 
yet ;  it  may  go  the  same  way  as  the  other. 

Q.  You  were  asked  a  question  this  morning  and 
I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  what  you  were  asked 
in  regard  to  some  council  here,  some  Workingmen's 
Council,  or  People's  Council,  and  Mr.  Barnes  inter- 
jected, following  it  along  with  a  question,  and 
asked  you  whether  you  had  any  relation  or  kinship 
with  the  Workingmen  and  Soldiers'  Council  in  Russia? 

MR.  BARNES:  I  do  not  mean  to  charge  that  it 
had  any  immediate  relation. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Was  of  the  same  character  and 
kind. 

MR.  BARNES :    That  is  what  I  meant,  yes. 

Q.     Do  you  know  of  any  analogy  between  the  two? 

A.     Why,  as  I  stated  this  morning • 

Q.  First,  I  want  to  ask  you  were  you  a  member 
of  any  such  council? 

A.     Of  the  People's  Council? 

Q.  Called  the  Peoples'  Council,  and  that  had  no  re- 
lation to  any  policy  or  program  or  anything  in  line 
with  the  Soviets,  did  it? 

A.  Well,  except  that  they  advocated  a  certain  line 
of  publicity  with  regard  to :  no  annexations  and  no 
indemnities,  and  free  development  of  all  peoples.  That 
is  one  of  the  planks  in  the  Council,  I  believe,  and  that 
was  one  of  the  planks  in  the  Soviet  Government  plat- 
form. 

174 


Q.  And  if  you  recall,  was  not  that  adopted  also  and 
has  not  it  been  adopted  also  by  the  Kerensky  Govern- 
ment? 

A.  Yes,  it  has,  and  by  the  Revolutionary  Govern- 
ment of  Russia. 

O.  And  that  was  adopted  later  in  the  phraseology, 
that  very  phraseology,  by  the  President? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.     Of  no  annexations  and  no  punitive  indemnities? 

A.     He  used  those  phrases. 

Q.     And  it  started  with  the  Socialist  Party? 

A.     In  the  United  States. 

Q.  And  the  Peoples'  Council  took  it  up,  and  then 
the  Russians,  and  then  the  President? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  yet  it  originated  with  the  Socialist  Party, 
this  very  declaration? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  what  I  am  directing  your  attention  to  is 
this :  the  Soviets  have  an  economic  program  and  pur- 
pose, and  as  I  remember  it,  the  Russian  Government 
was  locally  Soviet,  or  the  all-Russian  Soviet? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  Now  has  this  People's  Council  anything,  in  any 
character,  kind  or  object  with  them? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Does  not  deal  with  the  economic  problems  at 
all? 

A.  No,  sir,  it  was  a  propaganda,  organized  for  the 
discussion  of  public  policies. 

Q.     And  those  public  policies  were  what? 

A.     As  I  stated  them  this  morning. 

Q.     What  were  they,  you  may  state  them  again? 

A.  I  stated  them  this  morning,  and  they  were :  to 
state  the  terms  of  peace,  upon  which  the  allies  were 
willing  to  open  negotiations ;  second,  to  preserve  the 

175 


civil  liberties ;  and  third,  the  maintenance  of  economic 
and  industrial  standards. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  that  you  were  actually  a  member 
of  the  Civil  Liberties  Bureau? 

A.  I  do  not,  I  think  I  told  Mr.  Barnes  this  morning 
that  I  was  not  certain  on  that  point. 

THE  COURT :  Have  you  refreshed  your  recollec- 
tion since  recess  on  that? 

THE  WITNESS :  Well,  I  have  been  told— I  tried 
to  look  it  up,  but  I  was  never  officially  connected  with 
the  organization ;  but  I  remember  sitting  in  at  some 
of  the  executive  committee  meetings,  probably  unoffi- 
cially. 

Q.  You  understand,  as  a  Socialist,  or  do  you  mean 
as  a  Socialist,  in  using  the  term  "resistance"  the  aban- 
donment of  the  legal  proceedings? 

MR.  BARNES :  I  object  to  that,  if  the  Court  please, 
upon  the  same  grounds. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  It  does  not  come  exactly  the 
same  now,  your  Honor,  because  it  has  been  brought 
out  now  that  the  Socialist  Party  never  used  that  plat- 
form when  they  sent  it  out,  not  in  the  form  that  it  was 
read  to  the  witness  on  cross-examination. 

MR.  BARNES:  Well,  I  object  to  it.  On  cross- 
examination  I  endeavored  to  get  this  witness's  under- 
standing of  the  platform  and  his  counsel  objected  at 
that  time.  Now  his  counsel  is  endeavoring  to  bring 
it  out,  and  I  now  must  make  the  same  objection. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  I  will  withdraw  the  question 
and  I  will  give  you  another  chance  to  object  again.  I 
will  frame  another  question. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  the  term  "resistance"  the  forc- 
ible and  unlawful  opposition  to  the  execution  of  or 
compliance  with  the  law? 

MR.  BARNES:    That  is  objected  to. 

THE  COURT:     Is  the  word  "resistance"  nsed  in 

176 


"The  Great  Madness"  anywhere? 

MR.  STEDMAN :     No,  it  is  used  in  the  platform. 

THE  COURT:  I  understand,  but  I  would  allow 
you  to  ask  him  to  tell  about  that,  if  it  occurred  in  "The 
Great  Madness." 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  rather  think  it  appears  some- 
where in  "The  Great  Madness"  but  if  "resistance" 
doesn't  appear  there  I  am  somewhat  surprised  that  the 
word  is  not  there. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  the  word  "resistance"  occurring 
there  anywhere,  Mr.  Nearing? 

A.     I  don't  remember  it. 

Q.  Well,  find  a  page  where  that  word  is  found,  if 
you  can. 

MR.  BARNES :    I  don't  think  you  will  find  it. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  If  you  say,  Mr.  Barnes,  that  the 
word  resistance  was  not  used  there  in  "Great  Mad- 
ness," very  well. 

MR.  BARNES :    I  do  not  think  it  was. 

A.  It  is  on  the  title  page  of  "The  Menace  of  Mili- 
tarism." 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Good.  You  offered  that  in  evi- 
dence. Now,  your  Honor,  I  will  repeat  the  question. 

MR.  BARNES :  That  is  in  a  quotation  from  Wood- 
row  Wilson. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Yes,  and  he  adopts  that  phrase- 
ology. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  what  Mr.  Wilson  meant, 
I  cannot  do  that,  but  I  will  repeat  the  question  that 
I  put  to  you  before :  Do  you  mean  by  "resistance"  a 
forcible  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law  or  to 
appeals  to  the  law? 

MR.  BARNES:  I  object  to  what  he  means  by 
"resistance."  If  he  wants  to  give  his  side  of  what  he 
thinks  Woodrow  Wilson  meant,  to  express  his  idea 
of  this  particular  quotation,  where  he  says,  "if  we 

177 


have  forgotten  how  to  object,  how  to  resist,"  etc. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  Of  course,  if  you  object,  why 
I  am  not  asking  him  as  you  seem  to  think  to  put  the 
interpretation  on  what  Woodrow  Wilson  had  in  mind. 
I  am  not  asking  him  to  interpret  Mr.  Wilson's  mind. 

THE  COURT :  I  do  not  see  that  the  witness's  de- 
finition of  "resistance"  would  be  relevant  to  the  con- 
troversy unless  it  appeared  in  "The  Great  Madness," 
or  one  of  his  other  works.  Or,  unless  in  the  course 
of  his  examination  he  had  taken  some  position  as  to 
resistance.  I  do  not  understand  that  he  did  that. 

MR.  STEDMAN:  What  I  am  endeavoring  to  do, 
of  course,  is  apparent.  The  word  "resistance"  is  used 
in  the  document  that  goes  before  this  jury.  And  it  is 
well  enough  for  us  to  speculate  on  the  distinction  and 
difference  in  a  definite  line  of  evidence,  but  the  mean- 
ing that  a  word  may  take  on,  even  when  special  stress 
is  laid  upon  it,  may  be  very  different  when  it  has  not 
been  properly  defined  to  begin  with.  It  may  take  on 
a  different  meaning,  than  it  is  likely  to  if  the  District 
Attorney  should  argue  in  the  future,  that  he  was  ad- 
vocating "resistance  to  the  law,"  and  "resistance  to 
this  and  that  and  the  other  thing,"  his  interpretation 
of  that  term,  and  I  want  to  show  that  the  defendant 
had  by  that,  no  such  sinister  meaning,  but  that 
he  meant  open  resistance  by  legal  means,  which 
are  open  to  any  man  under  the  constitution,  and  which 
is  not  the  sinister  meaning  which  would  be  attempted 
to  be  argued  into  it  if  we  did  not  have  the  proper  de- 
finition before  us. 

MR.  BARNES:  The  point  about  that  is,  that  this 
is  a  question  that  the  witness  had  been  questioned 
about  by  the  Government,  and  he  testified  to  it  before 
lunch.  After  lunch — I  object  to  his  telling  about  it 
now. 

Q.     Do    you    believe    in    resistance    to    compulsory 

178 


military  training  and  to  the  conscription  of  life  and 
labor,  resistance  being  an  open  and  unlawful  violation 
of  the  law? 

A.     I  do  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Barnes  asked  you  whether  you  knew  that 
munition  contracts  were  let  to  the  lowest  bidder. 
I  believe  you  answered  and  said  that  you  did  not  know. 
Is  that  the  answer? 

A.  No,  I  did  not  know  about  the  awarding  of  con- 
tracts. 

O.  You  were  asked  in  regard  to  the  referendum 
taken  as  a  result  of  our  entrance  into  the  war.  Do 
you  know  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  public  action  or 
referendums  were  taken,  and  that  you  have  referred 
to  them?  Let  me  call  your  attention,  perhaps  to  two 
instances  where  in  Maine  and  Dakota  referendums 
were  taken. 

MR.  BARNES:  He  mentioned  those  in  his  pam- 
phlet. 

A.     Yes,  they  are  in  the  pamphlet. 

Q.     They  are  in  the  pamphlet,  I  believe? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  That  was  a  postal  card  referendum  taken  by 
Lundeen,  for  one 

THE  COURT:    Those  were  unofficial? 

MR.  STEDMAN :  Those  were  unofficial,  if  your 
Honor  please.  It  was  taken  by  sending  a  letter  inclos- 
ing a  return  postal  card  to  the  voters  in  the  district  and 
getting  returns. 

Q.     Are  you  familiar  with  that,  how  that  is  done? 

A.  There  is  a  statement  to  that  effect  in  "The  Great 
Madness."  I  recall  that,  and  there  were  Minnesota, 
and  I  think  there  was  one  in  Massachusetts,  one  in 
Ohio  and  one  in  Wisconsin,  and  I  do  not  remember 
the  other  instances,  but  they  were  overwhelmingly 
against  the  entrance  of  the  United  States  into  the  war. 

179 


Q.     Do  you  recall  there  was  one  in  Maine  also? 

A.     I  do  not  remember  that  particularly. 

BY  THE  COURT: 

Q.  Of  course,  in  these  unofficial  referendums,  you 
don't  know  to  whom  they  were  sent,  or  how  broad- 
cast they  were,  or  what,  do  you  ? 

A.  No,  there  were  quite  a  number  of  cases  the 
Congressmen  sent — took  a  section  right  out  of  his  or 
their  constituency,  and  sent  to  every  voter  in  that  par- 
ticular constituency. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  it  was  a  Congress 
district  wide  referendum,  or  the  extent  of  it,  or  how 
absolutely  impartial  it  was? 

A.  In  the  case  of  Lundeen,  he  got  8,800  answers 
back,  I  don't  know  how  many  he  didn't  get  back,  but 
eight  thousand  of  them  were  against  entrance  and 
eight  hundred  in  favor  of  it,  a  ratio  of  ten  to  one,  as  I 
recall. 

Q.  You  don't  know  how  many  people  did  not  an- 
swer the  Congressman's  letter,  do  you? 

A.     No,  sir,  no  evidence  on  that  point. 

BY  MR.  STEDMAN : 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  total  vote  there  is  in  Lun- 
deen's  district? 

A.     I  do  not. 

BY  THE  COURT : 

Q.     Where  did  he  come  from? 

A.     Minnesota. 

BY  MR.  STEDMAN: 

Q.  Speaking  of  the  War  of  1861,  do  you  recall  as 
a  matter  of  historical  knowledge,  that  the  issue  of  the 
war  was  a  political  issue,  prior  to  even  the  nomination 
of  Abraham  Lincoln  in  the  Douglas-Lincoln  debates? 

A.     Yes,  that  was  in  1858. 

Q.  That  was  the  issue,  wasn't  it,  throughout,  the 
North,  made  very  clear  at  that  time,  and  the  anti- 

180 


Secessionists  of  the  North  won  that  election,  did  they 
not,  that  is,  opposed  to  secession,  in  the  North? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  in  the  electing  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  was 
won  by  those  opposed  to  secession,  yes. 

Q.  Mixed  up  of  course  with  debate,  that  is,  be- 
tween those  opposing  and  in  favor  of  slavery? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  the  army  that  they  were  enlisting,  there 
were  those  who  were  not  opposed  to  secession,  but 
those  who  went  into  the  army  because  they  were  op- 
posed to  slavery? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  both  of  the  issues  were  very  promi- 
nent in  the  enlistment  campaigns. 

Q.  Some  went  in  on  the  loyalty  issue  and  the  na- 
tionalism issue,  and  others  went  in  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  or  Civil  Liberty  issue,  that  is,  one  went  in  for 
one  reason  and  others  went  in  for  other  reasons? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  1848  with  Mexico,  in  that  war,  do  you 
recall  that  that  was  also  a  political  campaign  fought 
out  on  that  issue  and  that  Lincoln  was  one  of  the  oppo- 
nents in  carrying  on  the  campaign  against  President 
Polk,  during  that  time? 

A.     During  that  war,  yes. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  before  the  entry  into  the  war 
there,  that  that  was  a  campaign  issue? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  developed  through  a  desire  for  the 
adding  of  one  more  State,  that  is  one  more  of  the 
States  to  the  one  side,  to  strengthen  and  maintain  its 
economic  position? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

MR.  BARNES :  Do  you  mean  does  this  witness 
recall  that  fact? 

MR.  STEDMAN  :  No,  does  he  know  it  as  a  matter 
of  historical  information,  of  course  you  do,  but  the 

181 


rest  of  us  do  not. 

Q.  And  the  war  issue  of  1916  to  the  extent  that  it 
developed  itself  in  the  United  States,  placed  the 
Democratic  candidate  in  the  position  of  anti-war 
candidate? 

MR.  BARNES:  That  is  objected  to  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  argumentative  and  not  proper. 

THE  COURT:     Objection  sustained. 

MR.  STEDMAN :  I  do  not  think  of  anything  more, 
I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Nearing. 

MR.  BARNES:    That  is  all. 


182 


Scott  Nearing's  Address 
to  the  Jury 

MR.  NEARING:  Gentlemen,  I  am  on  trial  here  be- 
fore you,  charged  with  obstructing  the.  recruiting  and 
enlistment  service  to  the  detriment  of  the  service,  to 
the  injury  of  the  service,  and  with  attempting  and  caus- 
ing insubordination,  disloyalty,  mutiny  and  the  refusal 
of  duty  within  the  military  and  naval  forces. 

That  is  the  charge  of  the  indictment  and  that  is  the 
charge  upon  which  I  am  being  tried. 

The  prosecution  has  not  been  able  to  show  a  single 
instance  in  which  recruiting  was  obstructed.  They 
have  not  been  able  to  show  a  single  instance  in  which 
insubordination,  disloyalty,  and  refusal  of  duty  were 
caused. 

It  has  been  seventeen  or  eighteen  months  since  this 
pamphlet  was  published.  During  that  time  there  have 
been  about  nineteen  thousand  copies  of  it  loose  in  the 
country,  and  the  prosecution  was  unable  to  bring  be- 
fore you  a:  single  instance  where  these  things  have  actu- 
ally occurred. 

How  then,  do  they  seek  to  make  out  their  case?  Mr. 
Barnes  said,  in  his  opening: 

"It  is  not  necessary  for  the  Government  to  show 
that  there  was  an  actual  obstruction  in  the  sense  of  a 
physical  obstruction ;  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  Gov- 
ernment to  show  actual  mutiny  and  disloyalty,  but  the 
publication  of  this  book  in  itself  is  sufficient  to  result 
in  a  conviction." 

183 


In  other  words,  the  Government  maintains  that  the 
publication  of  this  book,  and  the  intent  showed  by  the 
publication  of  the  book,  and  by  their  surrounding  evi- 
dence is  sufficient  to  warrant  a  conviction. 

So  that  the  only  act  that  is  alleged  against  me  is 
an  expression  of  my  opinions :  writing  in  this  book  and 
expressing  my  opinions  on  the  St.  Louis  Proclamation, 
of  the  Socialist  Party  platform. 

The  act  and  the  intent  are  both  to  be  construed  from 
my  expressions  of  opinion.  It  has  not  been  shown 
that  I  obstructed  enlistment,  that  I  tore  down  enlist- 
ment posters,  that  I  told  men  not  to  enlist,  it  has  not 
been  shown  that  I  went  among  soldiers  and  asked  them 
to  mutiny,  or  to  be  disloyal  or  to  refuse  to  perform 
their  duty,  none  of  these  things  are  shown. 

I  am  charged  with  writing  and  having  sent  that 
writing  to  a  publisher  and  had  it  published. 

I  am  charged,  furthermore,  with  expressing  fur- 
ther and  other  opinions  in  the  pamphlet  on  militarism 
and  in  certain  other  ways,  so  that  the  whole  crime  of 
which  I  am  supposed  to  be — according  to  the  prosecu- 
tion's case — guilty,  the  whole  crime  consists  in  my 
expression  of  opinion,  and  the  intent  which  they  pro- 
pose to  show,  both  arising  out  of  my  discussion  of 
public  questions. 

Now  as  to  this  book,  you  have  heard  it  read  or  have 
read  it,  and  I  suppose  all  of  you  have  or  have  had  or 
will  have  copies. 

This  book  was  written  in  order  to  present  a  view 
held  by  many  people — held  by  me  among  that  num- 
ber— on  the  greatest  public  question  that  has  come 
before  the  American  people,  I  suppose,  since  the  Civil 
War. 

It  is  a  book  written  on  the  greatest  issue  that  we 
have  viewed  in  our  generation.  It  was  written 
openly,  sent  to  a  publisher,  sent  to  Washington  and 

184 


copyrighted  and  sent  through  the  mails  tnrougliout 
August,  September,  October,  November,  December, 
January,  February  and  March  and  until  the  indict- 
ment was  found  in  April. 

During  all  of  those  nine  months,  this  pamphlet  went 
through  the  mails,  and  as  some  of  you  know,  the  Post 
Office  Department  has  been  very  rigorous  in  enforc- 
ing its  decisions  with  regard  to  unmailable  matter; 
and  all  through  those  nine  months  that  pamphlet  went 
through  the  mail  and  it  was  never  once  stopped  to  our 
knowledge.  It  wras  copyrighted,  it  was  sent  through 
the  mails  for  nine  months,  it  was  sold  openly  in  the 
Rand  School  bookstore  and  in  other  parts  of  the 
United  States.  So  far  as  I  know,  (and  1  am  in  touch 
with  the  situation),  it  never  was  given  away,  but  sold 
for  ten  cents,  openly,  without  any  attempt  at  conceal- 
ment. 

In  other  words,  gentlemen,  I  took  on  this  great  pub- 
lic question,  a  certain  position ;  I  presented  my  views 
in  this  book,  and  I  am  indicted  for  writing  the  book 
because  the  prosecution  alleges  it  caused — it  was  an 
obstruction  or  it  caused,  or  it  was  an  attempt  to  cause 
disloyalty  and  mutiny,  therefore  if  I  am  convicted 
under  this  indictment  I  will  be  convicted  for  an  ex- 
pression of  my  opinions.  There  is  no  other  evidence 
before  you  except  my  opinions. 

The  District  Attorney  has  not  shown  a  single  act 
except  those  involved  in  the  expression  of  an  opinion, 
either  on  the  witness  stand  or  in  the  various  writings 
of  mine  which  he  has  brought  before  you. 

So  that  by  convicting  me  for  writing  this  book  you 
convict  me  for  public  discussion,  and  you  draw  my 
intent  from  my  discussion.  On  the  same  ground  I 
think  all  of  the  opponents  of  any  administration  dur- 
ing the  war  might  be  convicted  for  opposing  in  any 
way  the  administration,  because  in  opposing  an  ad- 

185 


ministration,  any  opposition  to  it  tends  to  dampen  the 
ardor,  and  to  hold  back  and  to  check  enthusiasm. 

All  through  my  life,  I  have  been  interested  in  pre- 
serving the  institutions  of  democracy.  That  has  been 
one  of  the  things,  as  I  tried  to  point  out  on  the  wit- 
ness stand,  that  seem  to  me  fundamentally  important. 
I  believe  that  democracy  is  a  better  form  of  social 
organization  than  aristocracy,  or  monarchy  or  any 
other  form  of  Government  that  the  world  has  ever 
known.  Discussion  is  one  of  the  purposes  of  democ- 
racy. Democracy  means  that  a  people  talking  a  ques- 
tion over,  thinking  it  out  and  reaching  a  decision  upon 
it,  may  then  register  that  decision. 

The  only  way  to  have  intelligent  public  opinion  is 
to  have  discussion,  and  the  moment  you  check  dis- 
cussion you  destroy  democracy. 

When  any  adminstration,  whether  in  Russia  or  Ger- 
many or  England  or  the  United  States,  stops  any  dis- 
cussion and  puts  its  opponents  in  jail,  that  has  de- 
stroyed the  institution  of  democracy  because  democ- 
racy rests  on  discussion;  and  the  only  way  in  which 
we  can  preserve  democracy  is  to  reserve  to  every 
citizen  of  the  democracy  the  right  to  express  the  con- 
victions that  he  has :  the  right  to  be  right  and  the 
right  to  be  wrong. 

The  Constitution  does  not  guarantee  us  only  the 
right  to  be  correct,  we  have  a  right  to  be  honest  and 
in  error.  And  the  views  that  I  have  expressed  in  this 
pamphlet  I  expressed  honestly.  I  believe  they  are 
right.  The  future  will  show  whether  or  not  I  was  cor- 
rect, but  under  the  laws,  as  I  understand  it,  and  under 
the  Constitution  as  I  understand  it,  every  citizen  in 
this  country  has  a  right  to  express  himself,  subject 
always  to  the  law,  subject  always  to  the  limitations 
which  the  law  prescribes,  has  a  right  to  express  him- 
self on  public  questions. 

186 


The  moment  any  administration  enters  and  shuts 
down  that  right,  that  moment  democracy  ceases  to 
exist. 

Now  the  principal  question  that  enters  into  this 
thing  is  the  question  of  intent.  Mr.  Stedman,  I 
imagine,  will  talk  to  you  about  the  law,  or  about  the 
legal  consideration,  and  the  Judge,  I  believe  will 
charge  you  with  regard  to  the  legal  aspect  of  the  prob- 
lem of  intent. 

I  am  not  a  lawyer,  and  I  cannot  speak  to  you  regard- 
ing the  legal  phases  of  the  case,  but  I  should  like  to 
say  a  few  words  about  this  problem  of  intent. 

We  have  tried  to  produce  evidence  to  prove  to  you 
that  for  the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  years  I  have  been 
a  student  of  the  institutions,  standards  and  ideals  of 
American  life.  Ever  since  the  time  that  I  entered 
college  and  indeed  from  the  time  I  was  in  High  School, 
I  have  been  profoundly  interested  in  seeing  a  certain 
thing  done  in  the  United  States :  I  wanted  to  see 
liberty  first,  because  I  believe  liberty  is  fundamental 
in  society;  then  I  wanted  to  see  justice.  I  wanted  to 
see  that  people  got  opportunity,  that  the  boys  and 
girls  that  were  born  had  a  chance  to  be  well  born  and 
well  brought  up. 

And  during  these  twelve  or  fifteen  years  I  have  been 
busy  with  that  problem;  that  has  been  the  thing  to 
which  I  have  devoted  all  of  my  life  thus  far;  that  is 
the  thing  in  which  I  have  been  profoundly  interested 
— profoundly  interested  because  I  came  to  the  belief 
many  years  ago  that  with  the  resources  of  America 
and  the  opportunities  in  America  we  could  have  a  very 
much  finer  and  a  very  much  higher  standard  of  life 
here  than  we  actually  have. 

My  studies  and  my  investigations  have  led  me  to 
certain  conclusions :  for  example  I  believe  that  econo- 
mic forces  are  fundamental  forces.  I  tried  to  point 

IV 


that  out  in  the  course  of  my  testimony,  just  as  plants 
in  a  garden  draw  their  nourishment  from  the  dirt,  so 
men  and  women  in  a  society  draw  their  life  from  eco- 
nomic sources.  They  eat,  they  wear  clothes,  they  live 
in  their  houses,  and  every  time  that  the  sun  rises  they 
have  got  to  do  those  things,  we  are  thrown  back  to 
that  life.  In  the  garden  you  get  roses,  you  also  get 
lettuce  and  turnips,  fruits  of  almost  all  kinds — all  pro- 
ducts out  of  the  same  dirt. 

And  so  in  society  you  get  different  minds,  different 
thoughts,  different  ideas,  different  standards  of  life, 
and  they  all  reach  back  to  the  same  dirt:  to  the  food, 
clothing,  shelter,  and  the  necessary  economic  things 
of  life. 

If  you  cannot  get  these  economic  necessaries  you 
cannot  live.  Therefore  in  that  sense,  economics  is 
fundamental  in  the  minds  of  people,  so  fundamental 
that  all  through  history,  people  have  fought  over  the 
river  valleys,  over  the  choice  sections  of  the  earth; 
so  important  that  today  in  the  United  States  forty 
million  people  are  engaged  in  gainful  occupations, 
working  for  a  living,  because  without  work  we  cannot 
live;  without  an  economic  background  to  our  life  we 
cannot  get  anywhere. 

I  believe  that  those  economic  forces  which  are  so 
fundamental  have  always  shown  themselves  in  soci- 
ety, in  struggles  between  the  possessors  and  the  dis- 
possessed. Whoever  possesses  the  resources  and  the 
economic  opportunities  controls  the  means  of  life. 

In  the  early  years  of  American  life,  where  every 
man  practically  had  a  farm,  or  an  opportunity  to  get 
one,  economic  opportunity  was  widely  distributed  and 
resources  were  free.  You  could  go  out  to  the  border, 
to  the  edge  of  civilization,  out  to  the  frontier  world 
and  take  a  farm  or  take  a  piece  of  land. 

About  1890  the  resources  in  this  country  were  ex- 

188 


hausted.  There  were  no  more  free  resources :  all  the 
important  timber,  all  the  important  minerals,  all  the 
important  parts  of  the  earth,  practically,  were  taken 
up ;  and  from  that  time  until  this,  we  have  seen  a  grad- 
ual widening  chasm  between  those  who  possess  the 
necessities  and  those  who  do  not. 

When  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
drafted,  Madison,  Jefferson  and  other  men,  saw  the 
danger,  and  they  tried  to  provide  against  it.  They 
were  not  successful.  At  the  present  time  the  owner- 
ship of  most  of  the  United  States  is  in  the  hands  of 
a  tiny  percentage  of  people.  And  here  in  the  "City  of 
New  York  where  the  land  alone  is  worth  five  thou- 
sand millions  of  dollars,  the  improvements  three 
billions  more,  where  we  have  over  four  billions  of 
dollars  in  our  banks,  savings  banks  and  others,  four 
billion  five  hundred  millions  of  bank  deposits  in  this 
City,  and  the  Board  of  Education  and  the  United 
States  Food  Administration  report  280,000  children  in 
the  schools  inadequately  nourished  to  such  an  extent 
that  their  health  is  injured:  twenty-one  and  one-half 
out  of  every  hundred  children  in  the  City  of  New  York 
are  seriously  underfed.  In  this  same  City  we  have 
people  with  incomes  of  five  hundred  thousand  and  a 
million  dollars  a  year;  people  who  could  live  on  five 
thousand  or  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  have  all  the 
comforts  and  luxuries, — the  simple  luxuries  of  life. 

Here  we  have  on  one  hand  a  quarter  of  a  million 
hungry  children,  and  on  the  other  hand,  half  a  billion 
wealth  in  the  hands  of  the  few. 

Lincoln,  in  speaking  against  Judge  Douglas  in  1858 
on  the  slavery  issue,  said  that  no  order  of  society  can 
last,  in  which  one  man  can  say  to  another  man,  "You 
work  and  toil  and  earn  bread,  and  I  will  eat  it."  Now 
that  is  the  society  that  we  have  established :  one  man 
works  for  his  living,  another  man  owns  property  and 


from  the  rent  and  interest  and  dividends  whieh  he 
gains  out  of  his  property  ownership,  he  lives  without 
work,  if  he  desires. 

And  another  man  creates  the  shoes  and  the  clothes 
and  the  food  and  the  other  good  things  that  he  uses, 
and  he  has  those  things,  possesses  them,  enjoys  them, 
without  himself  ever  raising  a  finger  to  toil. 

At  the  present  time  there  are  people  at  Palm  Beach 
who  have  never  worked  for  their  living.  They  are 
down  there  living  extravagantly  and  enjoying  the  soft 
breezes,  getting  strength  and  health. 

There  are  men  and  women  here  in  New  York  who 
have  worked  all  their  lives,  been  honest  and  sober  and 
tried  to  bring  up  families  and  today  they  cannot  pay 
the  landlord  and  the  grocer  and  the  butcher  and  keep 
their  children  healthy  under  this  capitalistic  system 
although  they  are  sober,  earnest  and  honest,  indus- 
trious people,  and  all  of  it  due  to  the  fact  of  the  eco- 
nomic system  under  which  they  are  living  because  the 
wages  that  they  get  are  not  sufficient  to  buy  the  neces- 
saries of  life,  as  I  tried  to  point  out  on  the  stand  in 
my  discussion  of  the  wages  problem. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  people — these  people 
who  live  in  ease,  comfort  and  luxury,  who  have  never 
raised  a  finger  to  produce  one  solitary  article  of  food, 
clothing  or  shelter,  or  luxury  or  any  comforts,  and  this 
is  so  all  the  time  and  my  studies  have  taught  me  that 
these  conditions  exist.  You  know  them.  No  one  who 
has  read  or  thought  about  the  conditions  in  the  United 
States  but  knows  that  those  conditions  are  true, 
and  I  say  to  you  gentlemen  that  as  long  as  those  things 
are  true,  just  so  long  will  it  be  impossible  for  us  to 
have  stable  peace  and  order  in  our  society. 

No  person  is  more  anxious  than  I  to  have  an  or- 
dered, well  conducted  society,  but  I  do  not  believe 
that  it  is  possible  to  maintain  order  in  society  where 

190 


one  man  or  one  group  of  men  living  without  labor, 
luxuriously,  and  another  man,  or  group  of  men,  in 
spite  of  their  most  earnest  efforts,  are  unable  to  pro- 
vide their  families  with  the  necessaries  of  life. 

In  the  past  this  same  question  has  been  raised  and 
in  the  past  men  have  come  to  the  decision — and  I 
agree  with  that  decision — that  the  only  way  in  which 
we  can  have  justice  in  the  world  is  to  have  economic 
justice.  An  economic  justice  is  only  possible  where 
the  majority  and  not  the  minority,  controls  the  neces- 
saries of  life. 

If  democracy  means  anything,  it  means  that  the 
majority  of  people  control  the  conditions  of  their  own 
life.  In  the  United  States,  a  tiny  minority  controls 
economic  affairs.  And  so  long  as  one  small  group  of 
men  own  the  jobs,  own  the  products,  and  own  the 
surpluses  of  industry,  so  long  will  the  majority  be 
unable  to  secure  justice.  And  that  is  why  I  belieVe 
that  the  majority  of  people  must  control  in  industry 
and  economic  affairs  as  they  are  controlling  in  the 
political  affairs.  That  is  why  I  believe  that  we  must 
have  industrial  democracy  as  well  as  political  democ- 
racy. 

Now  I  say  this,  that  all  of  these  years  I  have  been 
studying  such  problems,  and  I  have  reached  those 
conclusions.  My  say-so  on  that  is  of  no  importance. 
The  existence  in  New  York  and  other  American  cities 
of  starving  children  side  by  side  with  fabulous 
wealth,  and  idle  people,  is  the  thing  that  should  be 
of  profound  concern  to  every  person  who  lives,  or 
rather  to  the  future  of  the  society  in  which  we  live. 

At  various  times,  as  we  pointed  out,  I  have  written 
down  my  conclusions  in  books.  We  had  here  the 
other  day  a  set  of  those  books.  Some  of  them  are 
purely  statistical,  full  of  tables  and  figures.  Some  of 
them  are  text  books,  some  are  pamphlets  like  this 

191 


"Great  Madness." 

Whenever  I  collected  together  a  great  body  of  in- 
formation which  seemed  to  me  to  be  important,  I 
embodied  it  into  a  book,  published  it,  and  in  some 
cases  I  published  it  at  my  own  expense.  Statistical 
books  are  extremely  expensive,  and  if  you  sell  one 
thousand  copies  of  a  statistical  book  you  are  doing 
very  well.  Publishers  won't  take  them,  and  authors 
have  to  pay  the  bill. 

I  published  those  books  because  I  felt  that  as  a 
teacher,  I  had  a  certain  obligation  to  the  community 
that  paid  my  salary.  I  was  working  in  the  State,  or 
a  semi-State  University.  I  was  working  at  a  com- 
paratively easy  job.  I  had  three  months'  vacation  in 
the  Summer  time.  I  had  leisure  during  the  year,  and 
I  employed  that  leisure  in  working  over  social  prob- 
lems. 

I  believe  that  whenever  any  person  gets  anything 
that  might  be  of  value  to  the  other  people  in  the  com- 
munity, that  it  is  his  obligation  to  turn  that  thing  over 
to  the  community :  whether  he  is  a  scientist  in  physical 
science,  or  a  bacteriologist,  a  chemist  or  a  scientist 
in  social  science,  and  economics,  or  sociology,  when 
a  man  discovers  a  method  of  separating  milk,  or  for 
destroying  the  bacteria,  harmful  bacteria  in  milk,  or 
when  he  discovers  a  method  of  checking  influenza,  or 
overcoming  tuberculosis,  and  gives  it  to  the  world, 
the  world  acclaims  the  gift,  and  its  giver. 

And  so  when  a  man  discovers,  or  so-called  science 
discovers  a  method  that  will  make  people  happier,  give 
them  more  opportunity,  a  greater  liberty  to  enjoy 
more  social  justice,  I  believe  he  has  got  exactly  the 
same  obligation  to  state  what  he  has  found.  If  they 
agree  with  him,  well  and  good,  if  they  don't  agree 
with  him,  he  goes  on  to  his  own  scientific  problems. 

I  said  there  on  the  witness  stand  that  five  of  these 

192 


books  dealt  \vith  distribution :  A  book  on  wages,  a 
book  on  the  standard  of  living,  a  book  on  the  cost 
of  living,  a  book  on  income  and  a  book  on  anthracite 
industry. 

When  I  published  those  books  I  knew  that  no  man 
could  take  a  stand  that  I  took  in  those  books,  and 
hold  a  job  in  an  American  University;  and  I  published 
them  because  I  wanted  the  American  people  to  know 
the  truth  about  the  most  fundamental  economic  ques- 
tions before  them  today :  the  question  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  wealth. 

We  have  learned  how  to  produce  wealth  in  large 
quantities,  but  we  haven't  yet  learned  how  to  distrib- 
ute it,  and  I  wanted  the  American  people  to  know  the 
results  of  my  studies  and  researches  regarding  the 
distribution  of  wealth. 

I  published  those  books,  and  as  we  mutually  agreed, 
and  I  said  in  the  course  of  my  direct  examination  on 
the  stand,  the  university  and  I  parted  company.  I 
then  went  out  to  Toledo.  After  I  had  been  there  a 
year  and  a  half  the  question  of  preparedness  came  up. 
I  regarded  the  question  of  preparedness  as  a  question 
of  fundamental  importance  to  society.  I  knew  who 
was  behind  the  preparedness  campaign.  I  knew  that 
no  man  could  hold  a  job  in  the  American  universities 
and  take  the  stand  that  I  took  on  the  preparedness 
issue.  I  wrote  the  "Germs  of  War"  and  went  all  over 
the  United  States,  speaking  on  preparedness,  and 
speaking  against  preparedness.  I  spoke  in  favor  of  a 
movement  of  preparedness  that  I  believed  will  alone 
safeguard  business  and  justice  among  men. 

The  Toledo  University  and  I  parted  company.  Then 
we  entered  the  war,  and  I  saw  what  I  believed  to  be 
a  great  menace  to  the  liberties  of  the  American  peo- 
ple, namely :  the  growing  power  of  the  plutocracy,  the 
growing  power  which  it  was  gaining  through  the  war, 

193 


and  so  I  wrote  this  book  on  the  "Great  Madness*'  in 
order  to  try  to  point  out  to  the  American  people  ex- 
actly what  was  happening. 

If  you  will  notice,  the  book  is  not  a  denunciation 
of  our  society,  it  is  not  a  denunciation  of  our  Govern- 
ment, it  is  an  exposition  of  certain  events  in  terms  of 
their  economic  significance.  I  tried  to  show  how  the 
economic  control  of  the  country,  of  the  resources, 
and  of  American  life  is  manifesting  itself  all  through 
the  social  structure.  I  published  that  book,  and  here 
we  are. 

For  fifteen  years  I  have  been  speaking  and  writing 
and  stating  my  views  on  public  questions.  I  have 
stated  it  openly,  I  have  stated  it  as  honestly  as  I  could 
state  it ;  I  stated  it  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  I  stated  it  at  the  University  of  Toledo,  and  I  have 
stated  it  since  I  left  the  University  of  Toledo. 

If  I  intended  to  obstruct  recruiting  or  enlist- 
ments, if  I  had  intended  to  interfere  with  the  prosec- 
ution and  carrying  on  of  the  administrative  policies 
of  the  navy  and  army,  either  by  creating  insubordina- 
tion and  mutiny,  or  otherwise,  I  should  have  said  so ; 
I  should  not  have  written  a  fifty-page  pamphlet  and 
sold  it  for  ten  cents  each ;  I  should  have  gone  out  and 
told  the  soldiers  so,  and  I  should  have  told  the  pros- 
pective soldier  so.  Never  in  my  life  have  I  gone  out 
and  done  anything  indirectly.  If  I  have  wanted  to 
say  a  thing,  I  have  said  it;  if  I  have  wanted  to  pre- 
sent a  matter  I  have  presented  it,  and  taken  the  con- 
sequences. If  I  had  wished  in  this  case  to  obstruct  or 
to  interfere,  I  should  have  obstructed  and  interfered 
and  taken  the  consequences. 

The  District  Attorney  was  at  considerable  pains  to 
prove  to  you  that  I  am  a  Socialist.  He  asked  me  ques- 
tions about  the  St.  Louis  Platform.  He  asked  me 
questions  about  the  Socialist  Party  Platform;  many 

194 


questions,  in  order  to  prove  that  I  am  a  Socialist.  I 
am  a  Socialist. 

I  want  to  tell  you  something  about  what  that 
means:  in  the  first  place,  I  am  an  internationalist; 
that  is,  I  believe  in  the  brotherhood  of  all  men.  In 
the  language  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  I 
believe  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  that  they  have 
certain  rights  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness. That  holds  true  of  the  man  that  lives  next 
door  to  me,  and  it  holds  true  of  the  man  that  lives 
in  South  Africa,  and  the  man  that  lives  way  over  in 
Asia.  I  believe  in  the  Brotherhood  of  Man. 

I  believe  that  ultimately  the  whole  world  will  be 
federated  together,  just  as  these  United  States  are 
federated  together.  There  was  a  time  in  the  United 
States  when  a  man  that  lived  in  Georgia  or  Virginia, 
or  New  York,  was  perfectly  willing  to  quarrel  with 
a  man  who  lived  in  Pennsylvania  or  Massachusetts 
or  in  New  Hampshire.  If  you  asked  a  man  a  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ago  where  he  was  from,  he  said,  I  am 
from  Virginia;  I  am  from  Pennsylvania.  He  now 
states,  I  am  from  the  United  States,  not,  I  am  from 
the  American  Colonies.  He  was  a  Virginian  first  and 
an  American  second.  But  that  time  has  passed. 

Today  America  is  kept  first,  and  Pennsylvania  sec- 
ond. And  the  time  will  come  when  the  man  from 
North  America  and  the  man  from  Europe  and  the 
man  from  Africa  will  say,  I  am  a  member  of  the  human 
race;  and  the  human  race  has  certain  common  inter- 
ests, certain  common  obligations,  and  first  among 
them  is  the  recognition  of  the  fact  of  the  universal 
brotherhood  of  all  men. 

I  am  from  the  United  States?  Yes.  I  am  from 
New  York?  Yes.  I  am  from  Buffalo?  Yes.  I  have 
a  home  in  Buffalo?  Yes.  I  am  loyal  to  my  home? 
Yes.  To  Buffalo?  Yes.  To  New  York?  Yes.  To 

195 


the  United  States?  Yes.  And  I  am  also  loyal  to  my 
fellow  brother  man. 

In  other  words,  we  Socialists  look  forward  to  a  time, 
and  certainly  we  are  not  alone  in  looking  that  way, — 
there  are  others  who  are  not  Socialists  who  agree  with 
us  in  this, — we  look  forward  to  the  time  when  the  peo- 
ples of  all  the  world  will  join  hands  in  common 
brotherhood.  And  when  we  say  we  are  international- 
ists, that  is  what  we  mean.  A  man,  yes,  outside  the 
boundaries  of  certain  nations,  but  within  the  greater 
boundaries  of  the  world,  he  is  within  the  boundaries 
of  the  whole  world,  and  he  is  a  member  of  the  human 
race.  And  we  are  internationalists,  in  the  sense  that 
we  believe  in  our  obligations  to  our  human  brothers, 
and  that  they  are  the  supreme  obligations  of  the  world. 

That  does  not  make  us  any  less  loyal  to  our  homes 
or  to  our  cities  or  our  nations,  but  it  does  give  us  a 
larger  and  a  more  comprehensive  loyalty. 

In  the  second  place,  believing  that,  I  believe  that  we 
can  do  the  things  that  are  necessary  to  bring  human 
brotherhood  into  reality. 

What  are  the  facts  of  international  life :  education 
internationalizes,  science  internationalizes,  commerce 
internationalizes,  industry  internationalizes  the  pro- 
cesses and  the  methods  of  ideas,  arts  and  letters  and 
life,  all  internationalize.  What  then  stands  in  the  way 
of  human  brotherhood?  Why,  the  thing  that  stands 
in  the  way  is  that  fragment  of  nationalism,  that  still 
remains,  that  fragment  is  capitalism. 

And  every  nation,  as  I  tried  to  point  out  in  my  tes- 
timony, in  every  nation  there  is  a  little  coterie  of  men 
or  interests  who  find  it  to  their  profit  to  keep  national 
animosities  alive.  The  peoples  of  the  world  have  no 
animosities  one  against  the  other,  but  the  rulers  of  the 
world  fan  those  animosities  into  flame :  religious  ha- 
tred, class  antagonism,  national  feeling,  are  all  kept 

196 


boiling  and  stirring  in  men's  souls. 

You  go  to  a  restaurant,  or  you  go  to  the  shop  or  you 
go  out  on  the  street,  and  you  will  sit  down  together, 
and  you  will  work  together  with  Irish  and  Austrian, 
Italian  and  Slovak,  side  by  side,  elbow  to  elbow.  The 
peoples  of  the  world  have  nothing  against  one  another, 
the  people  of  the  world  have  more  in  common  than 
they  have  in  opposition.  It  is  the  economic  barrier,  it 
is  the  economic  division  lines  that  create  the  difficulty. 

And  we  Socialists,  or  I,  rather,  am  interested — and 
that  is  the  reason  I  am  a  Socialist — in  destroying  those 
economic  division  lines.  How  can  that  be  done?  I 
believe  there  is  only  one.  way.  I  believe  that  is  the  only 
way  to  destroy  these  economic  barriers  and  make  in- 
ternational life  a  reality,  and  that  is,  to  give  to  those 
who  work  the  full  product  of  their  labor;  instead  of 
having  a  man  work  for  a  part  of  what  he  creates, 
turning  the  other  part  over  in  the  form  of  interest, 
rent  and  dividends  to  the  owner  of  the  job,  I  believe 
that  the  worker,  the  man  or  woman  who  was  render- 
ing a  socially  useful  service  should  get  the  full  value 
of  his  product.  Then  there  would  not  be  any  surplus 
to  invest  in  foreign  markets,  and  in  foreign  opportuni- 
ties. Then  there  would  not  be  any  surplus  to  be  used 
by  private  individuals  in  the  development  of  Mexico 
or  China  or  Argentine. 

You  say  then  that  those  countries  would  develop 
more  slowly.  Perhaps.  But  when  they  did  develop 
that  country  it  would  come  from  within  those  coun- 
tries and  it  would  be  for  the  benefit  of  those  countries 
and  not  for  the  benefit  of  some  foreign  capitalist. 

I  believe  we  will  never  solve  our  international  dif- 
ferences successfully  until  we  have  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  individuals  the  right  to  invest  surplus,  the 
right  to  utilize  vast  quantities  of  wealth  in  the  way 
that  will  create  friction  and  ultimately  international 

107 


dissension  and  war  between  the  different  groups  of 
peoples.  Therefore  I  am  in  favor  of  having  the  work- 
ers own  their  own  jobs.  There  is  only  one  way  to  do 
that  now. 

In  early  America,  when  there  was  no  great  aggre- 
gation of  wealth,  when  each  man  could  own  his  farm, 
he  could  own  his  job.  At  present  the  telephone  system 
is  a  system.  The  railroad  system  is  a  system.  The 
banking  system  is  a  system.  The  United  States  Steel 
Corporation  system  is  a  system.  No  one  man  can  own 
his  own  job.  You  cannot  own  a  rail,  you  cannot  own 
a  link,  you  cannot  own  a  piece  of  a  system  because  if 
you  take  out  that  piece,  your  system  is  cut.  If  you 
take  out  a  telephone  exchange,  you  break  down  the 
integrity  of  the  telephone  organization. 

Therefore  the  only  way  in  which  one  man  can  own 
his  job  is  to  own  it  collectively,  that  is,  the  whole 
system.  So  that  we  believe  that  all  the  people  who 
work  should  own  the  tools  with  which  they  work,  just 
as  all  the  people  of  the  United  States  own  the  harbor 
of  New  York.  I  believe  that  all  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  should  own  the  railroads  and  the  bank- 
ing system  and  every  great  social  product  in  its  en- 
tirety, just  as  they  own  the  post  office,  just  as  they 
own  several  great  irrigation  plants,  and  the  Panama 
Canal,  and  some  other  similar  developments. 

I  believe  the  only  solution,  the  only  possible  solution 
is  that  the  people,  all  of  the  people,  that  they  may 
have  free  economic  life,  is  that  they  control  the  po- 
litical life. 

One  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  they  would  have 
laughed  at  the  idea  of  having  a  political  democracy. 

Napoleon  said  a  republic  of  twenty-six  million  souls 
were  folly.  He  sneered  at  the  concept  that  people 
could  govern  themselves  politically.  Today  we  are 
beginning  to  wonder  whether  it  will  not  be  possible 

198 


for  people  to  govern  themselves  economically,  and 
today,  as  I  hold,  there  are  many  who  see  here  the 
coining  principle,  the  great  proletariat  control  of  eco- 
nomic affairs,  and  who  regard  it  as  a  ridiculously 
absurd  thing,  an  impossible  thing,  but  as  I  say,  de- 
mocracy means  control  by  the  people,  and  I  believe 
in  democracy,  and  I  believe  therefore  in  the  control  by 
the  people  of  the  machinery  of  production.  Just  as  I 
believe  they  should  control  the  city  government,  just 
so  I  believe  they  should  control  the  other  branches  of 
life.  Just  as  they  control  the  political  returns,  just  so 
they  should  control  the  economic  returns. 

And  so  it  seems  to  me  there  is  no  solution  in  any 
other  way  than  similarly  to  control  economic  problems 
as  we  control  political  problems.  They  have  both 
national  and  international  systems. 

Some  of  you  have  noticed  recently  that  the  war  is 
over,  but  yet  there  is  turmoil  all  over  the  earth :  tur- 
moil in  Britain,  turmoil  in  the  United  States ;  strikes, 
disturbances,  and  we  are  having  very  many  problems 
yet  which  have  not  been  solved  even  though  the  war 
be  over.  The  solution  of  every  problem  depends  on 
its  being  settled  right,  nothing  ever  is  settled  until  it 
is  settled  right,  that  is,  until  it  is  settled  to  the  best  of 
our  belief,  it  is  not  settled;  and  I  believe  that  the 
Socialist  philosophy  presents  to  us  the  best  avenue 
along  which  to  approach  the  settlement  of  these  stu- 
pendous problems  of  our  economic  life. 

I  do  not  say  that  the  socialists  have  the  entire 
solution.  I  do  not  say  that  the  socialists  when  they 
come  into  power,  as  they  surely  will  come  into  power, 
will  dispose  of  all  the  problems  of  the  world.  By  no 
means,  as  there  will  always  be  problems;  but  this  we 
believe,  going  forward  step  by  step  through  mechanics, 
and  through  chemistry,  through  applied  science,  we 
are  solving  the  problems  of  production  and  are  able  to 

199 


turn  the  resources  of  nature  into  food  and  clothing 
and  shelter,  and  the  other  necessaries  of  life,  so  I  be- 
lieve society  must  solve  the  problem  of  distribution. 

Facing  all  of  these  problems  equitably,  and  in  the 
light  of  past  experience,  we  believe  that  the  only  so- 
lution is  to  turn  these  things  over,  that  is,  operate  and 
turn  them  over  to  the  people  who  own  them. 

As  I  said  the  other  day  when  I  was  on  the  witness 
stand,  that  soap  is  made  and  it  should  be  made  to  keep 
people  clean,  and  that  if  shoes  are  made  they  should 
be  made  to  protect  people's  feet.  If  food  is  produced 
it  should  be  produced  to  nourish  the  human  body.  But 
as  it  is  today,  we  are  making  soap  for  profit,  we  are 
making  shoes  for  profit,  we  are  making  food  for  profit. 
The  profiteering  has  become,  and  justly  so,  a  word  of 
contempt  and  opprobrium,  and  profiteering  lies  at  the 
heart  of  the  capitalistic  system. 

The  present  system  was  organized,  that  is,  the 
present  system  of  industry  was  organized  for  profit 
and  not  for  the  service  of  mankind;  and  I  am  one  of 
those  who  believe  that  you  can  never  have  an  exact 
solution  of  any  social  problem  until  you  have  the  ma- 
chinery organized  for  the  benefit  not  of  the  very 
few,  but  for  the  benefit  or  for  the  service  of  the  great 
masses  of  the  people.  In  other  words,  as  they  said  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  greatest  good  to  the  great- 
est number.  That  holds  true  of  economic  as  well  as 
political  questions. 

The  District  Attorney  also  asked  me  a  number  of 
questions  concerning  my  attitude  towards  the  war.  I 
wish  he  had  put  the  Bible  in  evidence  and  asked  me 
what  I  thought  about  the  phrase,  "Thou  shalt  not 
kill";  and  about  that  other  phrase,  "Overcome  evil 
with  good."  But  he  didn't  do  that.  I  would  have  said 
that  I  agreed  with  those  phrases  as  I  agreed  with 
many  others. 

200 


I  told  him  that  I  believed  this  war  was  a  capitalists' 
war,  that  is,  that  I  believed  that  it  was  a  war  between 
capitalist  nations.  When  the  war  broke  out  there 
were  no  other  kind  of  nations  on  earth  than  that  kind — 
so  that  there  could  not  be  anything  else  but  a  war 
between  capitalist  nations.  By  the  capitalist  nation 
we  mean  a  nation  that  is  dependent  upon  a  capitalist 
system  of  production,  production  by  means  of  ma- 
chinery— capital. 

All  the  great  nations  of  the  world  were  capitalist 
nations  at  the  time  the  war  broke  out.  The  war  was 
necessarily  a  capitalists'  war.  A  war  between  capi- 
talist nations,  and  as  we  all  know  now,  or  think  we 
know,  it  was  primarily  a  war  over  the  trade  routes  to 
Persia  and  Syria,  or  over  the  "Berlin  to  Bagdad  Rail-' 
road"  if  you  like,  to  put  it  that  way;  a  war  open  to 
commercial  and  financial  rights. 

I  read  you  the  other  day  a  number  of  statements 
from  the  Navy  League,  and  you  will  remember  it  is 
an  ultra-capitalist,  an  ultra-conservative  organization, 
in  which  they  said  exactly  that  thing  which  economists 
have  stated  for  so  long  a  time ;  students  of  history 
have  said  it  for  a  long  time;  the  Navy  League  comes 
forward  and  says  the  same  thing;  Mr.  Wilson  has 
repeatedly  stated,  and  I  believe  it  was  a  war  between 
the  capitalist  nations  and  I  believe  it  had  as  its  chief 
business  certain  benefits  for  small  groups  of  capital- 
ists. That  does  not  mean  that  I  believe  the  people 
who  entered  the  war,  entered  it  for  capitalist  reasons. 
Obviously  they  could  not  because  they  had  no  capital- 
ist interests.  The  masses  of  people  in  all  the  countries 
involved  have  no  capitalist  interest;  they  were  being 
exploited,  they  were  being  worked;  theirs  was  the 
loss,  to  their  prejudice  in  all  of  the  capitalist  countries 
of  the  world.  They  entered  the  war  for  what  they 
called  patriotic  reasons ;  they  were  loyal  to  their 

201 


country;  they  believed  that  they  were  defending  their 
country,  their  homes  and  their  firesides  and  their 
liberties,  from  invasion ;  they  entered  it  with  enthusi- 
asm, and  they  entered  it  honestly  and  sincerely,  with 
no  capitalistic  motives  whatever;  they  entered  it  hon- 
estly and  sincerely,  just  as  the  nations  entered  it  hon- 
estly and  sincerely  with  capitalistic  motives.  And  I 
honestly  and  sincerely  believe  that  they  sincerely  and 
honestly  and  patriotically  and  altruistically  entered  the 
contest,  that  is,  these  people.  So  I  say  I  believe  it 
was  a  capitalists'  war,  a  war  between  capitalist  nations 
over  financial  and  economic  issues :  coal,  iron,  trade, 
investments,  opportunities,  and  the  Navy  League 
backs  me  up,  and  a  lot  of  other  authorities  from  that 
side  of  the  fence  back  me  up. 

I  told  the  District  Attorney  on  the  stand  that  I  was 
opposed  to  all  wars.  I  regard  war  as  a  social  disease, 
something  that  afflicts  society,  that  curses  people.  I 
do  not  suppose  three  people  in  a  hundred  like  war.  I 
do  not  suppose  that  three  people  in  a  hundred  want 
war.  There  are  some  people  who  are  pugnacious,  and 
who  love  to  fight,  for  the  sake  of  a  fight,  and  they 
might  like  war,  but  I  do  not  believe  there  are  three 
people  in  a  hundred,  certainly  not  five  in  a  hundred, 
that  do. 

I  believe  the  great  majority  of  people  agree  with 
me  that  war  is  a  curse,  an  unmitigated  curse.  All  the 
things  that  come  out  of  war  come  out  in  spite  of  war 
and  not  because  of  it. 

The  democracy  that  has  come  into  Europe,  what- 
ever it  is  called,  has  come  in  spite  of  the  war  and  not 
because  of  it.  That  would  have  come  out  in  any  case, 
and  we  would  have  had  it  without  the  expenditure  of 
twenty  million  lives  and  a  hundred  and  eighty  billions 
of  wealth. 

I  regard  war  as  a  social  disease,  a  social  curse,  and 

202 


I  believe  that  we  should  stamp  war  out.  To  my  mind 
the  great  curse  of  war  is  not  that  people  are  killed  and 
injured,  not  that  property  is  destroyed.  That  happens 
every  day  in  peace  times  as  well  as  in  war  times.  To 
my  mind  the  great  curse  of  war  is  that  it  is  built  on 
fear  and  hate. 

Now  fear  and  hate  are  primitive  passions;  the  sav- 
ages in  the  woods  are  intimidated  by  fear  and  hate. 
They  do  not  belong  in  civilized  society.  In  civilized 
society,  for  fear  and  hate  we  substitute  constructive 
purposes  and  love.  It  is  their  positive  virtues.  When 
we  fear  things,  we  draw  back  from  them.  When  we 
hate  things,  we  want  to  destroy  them. 

In  civilized  society,  instead  of  drawing  away  from 
things,  and  wanting  to  destroy  them,  we  want  to  pull 
things  together  and  build  them  up.  Fear  and  hate 
are  negatives.  Peace  and  love  are  positives,  and  form 
the  forces  upon  which  civilization  is  built.  And  where 
we  have  collectively  fear  and  hate,  it  is  a  means  of 
menace  to  the  order  of  the  world. 

Furthermore,  during  war,  we  ask  people  to  go  out 
and  deliberately  injure  their  fellows.  We  ask  a  man 
to  go  out  and  maim  or  kill  another  man  against  whom 
he  has  not  a  solitary  thing  in  the  world, — a  man  who 
may  be  a  good  farmer,  a  good  husband,  a  good  son,  and 
a  good  worker,  and  a  good  citizen.  Another  man  comes 
out  and  shoots  him  down  ;  that  is,  he  goes  out  and  raises 
his  hand  against  his  neighbor  to  do  his  neighbor  dam- 
age. That  is  the  way  society  is  destroyed.  Whenever 
you  go  out  to  pull  things  to  pieces,  whenever  you  go 
out  to  injure  anybody,  you  are  going  out  to  destroy 
society.  Society  can  never  be  built  up  unless  you  go 
out  to  help  your  neighbors. 

The  principle,  "each  for  all  and  all  for  each,"  is  the 
fundamental  social  principle.  People  must  work  to- 
gether if  they  are  going  to  get  anywhere.  War 

203 


teaches  people  to  go  out  and  destroy  other  people  and 
to  destroy  other  people's  property. 

And  when  Sherman  said  that  war  was  hell,  I  believe 
that  he  meant,  or  at  least  to  me  that  means,  that  war 
creates  a  hell  inside  of  a  man  who  goes  to  war.  He  is 
going  to  work  himself  up  into  a  passion  of  hatred 
against  somebody  else,  and  that  is  hell. 

The  destruction  of  life  and  property  is  incidental. 
The  destructive  forces  that  that  puts  into  a  man's  soul 
are  fundamental.  That  is  why  I  am  opposed  to  all 
wars,  just  as  I  am  opposed  to  all  violence.  I  don't 
believe  in  any  man  having  the  right  to  go  out  and  use 
violence  against  another  man.  That  is  not  the  right 
of  one  human  being  to  have  against  the  other,  that  is 
not  the  way  you  get  brotherhood.  That  is  the  reason 
I  told  the  District  Attorney  on  the  stand  that  I  was 
against  all  wars.  I  am  against  duelling;  I  am 
against  all  violence  of  man  against  man,  and  war  is 
one  of  those  methods  of  violence. 

I  believe  war  is  barbaric,  I  believe  it  is  primitive,  I 
believe  it  is  a  relic  of  a  bygone  age;  I  believe  that 
society  will  be  destroyed  if  built  up  that  way.  That 
is,  I  believe  that  they  that  take  the  sword  must  perish 
by  the  sword;  just  as  they  that  set  out  to  assist 
their  neighbors  are  bound  to  build  up  a  strong,  co- 
hesive united  society.  That  is  the  field  over  which  I 
went  in  my  direct  testimony  and  in  the  cross-examina- 
tion. 

I  have  been  a  student  of  public  affairs.  I  am  a 
Socialist.  I  am  a  pacifist.  But  I  am  not  charged  with 
any  of  these  things  as  offenses.  On  the  other  hand  I 
believe  that  as  an  American  citizen  I  have  a  right  to 
discuss  public  questions.  I  think  the  Judge  will  charge 
you  so.  I  have  a  right  to  oppose  the  passage  of  a  law. 
I  think  the  Judge  will  charge  you  so.  I  have  a  right 
under  the  law,  after  the  law  is  passed,  to  agitate  for  a 

2*4 


development  of  public  sentiment  that  will  result  in  a 
repeal  of  that  law.  I  think  the  Judge  will  charge  you 
so. 

In  other  words,  as  I  said  in  the  beginning,  in  a 
democracy,  if  we  are  to  have  a  democracy,  as  a  student 
of  public  affairs  and  as  a  Socialist  and  as  a  pacifist,  I 
have  a  right  to  express  my  opinions.  I  may  be  wrong, 
utterly  wrong,  and  nobody  listen  to  me,  nobody  pay 
any  attention  to  me.  I  have  a  right  to  express  my 
opinions. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  been  throughout  my  life  as  con- 
sistent as  I  could  be.  I  have  spoken  and  written  for 
years,  honestly  and  frankly.  I  went  on  the  stand  and 
I  spoke  to  you  as  honestly  as  I  knew  how.  I  answered 
the  District  Attorney's  questions  as  honestly  and  as 
frankly  as  I  could.  I  stand  before  you  today  as  an 
advocate  of  economic  justice  and  world  brotherhood, 
and  peace  among  all  men. 

And  I  wrote  this  pamphlet  in  the  attempt  to  further 
those  ends. 

I  desire  to  say  just  one  more  thing:  this  is  America 
in  which  I  am  on  trial,  and  America's  proudest  tradi- 
tion is  her  tradition  of  liberty.  For  three  hundred 
years  people  have  been  coming  to  America:  Puritans, 
Pilgrims,  Huguenots,  Quakers,  came  over  and  formed 
the  Colonies. 

Later,  the  Irish,  the  Scotch,  the  Germans,  the  Rus- 
sians, the  Italians,  the  Syrians  came  here,  not  because 
of  the  hills  and  valleys,  not  because  of  the  climate,  not 
because  of  the  language,  but  because  of  the  liberty  of 
America ;  and  the  men  who  came  here  and  the  women 
who  came  here  in  1914,  came  here  just  as  sincerely  in 
search  of  that  liberty  as  the  men  and  women  who  came 
here  in  1620. 

For  three  hundred  years  the  world  has  been  looking 
to  America,  and  coming  to  America  for  liberty.  That 

205 


is  the  choicest  and  the  greatest  heritage,  that  which 
Americans  love. 

What  was  it  that  these  people  sought  to  escape  in 
Europe?  They  sought  to  escape  hunger,  hardship, 
misery,  suffering,  and  poverty.  They  came  over  here 
because  they  thought  that  the  resources  of  America 
would  yield  enough  food  and  clothing  and  shelter  to 
feed  and  clothe  and  house  every  human  being  decently 
and  comfortably. 

They  came  over  from  Europe  to  escape  ignorance 
and  escape  the  darkness  in  which  Europe  had  been 
kept  by  these  rulers.  They  came  over  here  for  en- 
lightenment— opportunity.  Many  of  them  came  over 
here  because  it  gave  them  the  only  chance  that  the 
world  offered  to  express  the  truth,  as  they  saw  it. 
They  left  Europe  because  they  wanted  to  escape  pre- 
judice, bigotry,  class  antagonism  and  race  hatred. 
They  came  over  here  because  they  thought  that  here 
they  would  find  brotherhood  among  men,  because  they 
thought  that  here  all  peoples  were  welcome  to  sit 
down  together  and  enjoy  the  opportunities  that  Amer- 
ica offered.  They  left  Europe  because  of  its  military 
service,  its  wars,  and  the  fear  and  hatred  of  war,  that 
is,  that  war  engendered.  They  thought  to  come  over 
here  and  find  peace  and  plenty.  They  left  Europe  be- 
cause of  tyranny  and  despotism ;  the  tyranny  of  the 
landlord,  the  despotism  of  aristocracy  and  the  owners 
of  the  sources  of  life. 

They  came  over  here  because  they  thought  that  here 
they  would  find  that  every  man  had  equal  opportunity 
for  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  They 
came  here  seeking  that  liberty  of  the  body,  the  liberty 
of  the  mind  and  the  liberty  of  their  heart  and  soul,  and 
Socialist  liberty.  That  is  the  background  of  the  coun- 
try in  which  we  are  living. 

206 


That  is  the  thing  of  which  America  is  proud  and 
for  which  America  has  stood;  that  is  the  thing  for 
which  I  believe  America  will  stand  today. 

There  is  nothing  unique  in  our  wealth.  Other  na- 
tions have  wealth.  There  is  nothing  unique  in  our 
material  possessions.  Other  nations  have  material 
possessions.  But  there  was  something  unique  in  our 
liberty. 

As  I  said  to  you  on  the  witness  stand,  I  am  an 
American,  my  ancestors  have  been  Americans  for 
tnore  than*  two  hundred  years.  As  an  American  I  have 
"certain  rights  and  certain  duties.  Among  my  rights 
under  the  first  amendment  to  the  Constitution  are  the 
Tights  of  free  speech  and  the  free  press;  the  right  to 
speak  and  print  the  convictions  that  I  have.  It  was 
"for  those  rights  that  our  ancestors  left  Europe  and 
came  here.  It  is  for  those  rights  that  some  of  us  are 
contending  today. 

I  care  not  for  the  prosperity  of  this  country  if  we 
are  going  to  have  gag  laws.  I  care  not  for  the  wealth 
of  this  country  if  we  are  going  to  be  forbidden  to  have 
free  speech,  and  an  opportunity  for  expressing  our 
minds  and  expressing  our  opinions  and  discussing  the 
great  issues  that  are  before  us. 

In  the  old  times  of  the  Czar,  we  did  not  protest 
against  Russia  because  she  lacked  wealth ;  we  protested 
against  her  because  she  lacked  liberty. 

What  was  it  that  we  found  was  lacking,  or  what 
was  it  that  we  found  against  the  Kaiser  in  Germany? 
Was  it  that  he  was  not  a  good  business  man?  He  was 
an  excellent  business  man.  Was  it  because  he  was 
not  a  good  organizer?  He  was  an  excellent  organizer. 
What  we  had  against  this  man  was  the  fact  that  he 
was  a  tyrant,  that  he  trampled  on  the  rights  of  other 
people. 

207 


They  had  wealth  in  Russia,  they  had  prosperity  in 
Germany.  In  America  we  want  liberty.  And  I  believe 
that  as  an  American  citizen,  that  is  the  dearest  pos- 
session for  which  I  can  contend.  That  is  my  right 
constitutionally  and  legally.  But  if  there  were  no 
constitution  and  no  law,  it  would  be  my  right  as  a 
member  of  a  democratic  society. 

Furthermore,  as  a  citizen,  I  have  certain  duties. 
Citizenship  involves  duties  as  well  as  rights.  If  I  saw 
that  your  house  were  on  fire,  it  would  be  my  duty  to 
warn  you  and  to  try  to  put  it  out,  that  is,  put  out  the 
fire,  and  if  I  could  not  put  out  the  fire,  to  save  as  much 
of  your  goods  and  such  of  your  family  as  I  could  save. 
That  would  be  my  duty  as  a  neighbor. 

I  have  been  a  student  of  public  affairs  in  this  coun- 
try for  many  years.  I  believe  this  country  is  in  danger, 
in  dire  peril.  On  the  one  hand  I  see  imperialism, 
militarism  and  war  ahead  of  us.  In  our  policy  toward 
Mexico,  in  the  policy  that  we  are  developing  under 
the  direction  of  preparedness  advocates  about  which  I 
spoke  last  Friday,  I  see  ahead  of  us  imperialism  and 
militarism  and  war. 

This  is  not  the  last  war,  there  is  another  war,  and 
it  will  be  a  war  between  this  nation  and  the  nation 
that  succeeds  in  the  present  contention  in  Europe. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  see  ahead  of  us  in  our  indus- 
trial life,  exploitation,  widespread,  by  the  masters  of 
those  who  work  for  them.  I  see  that  exercised  with 
increasing  tyranny,  and  I  see  ahead  of  us  revolt.  In 
other  words,  to  my  mind,  the  outlook  in  America  is 
not  bright,  and  I  am  upheld  in  that  view  by  Senators, 
by  business  men,  by  labor  leaders,  by  all  of  the  re- 
sponsible authorities  who  are  speaking  today  for 
America's  future. 

There  are  clouds  on  the  horizon.  I  believe  America 
is  in  peril  and  I  believe  that  she  is  in  peril  from  in- 

208 


ternal  disturbances;  I  believe  that  the  danger  lurks 
within.  And  I  believe  it  rests  primarily  in  our  unfair 
and  unjust  system  of  distribution  of  wealth,  and  the 
income  of  the  country. 

As  I  said  a  moment  ago,  that  if  your  house  were  on 
fire,  it  would  be  my  duty  as  a  neighbor  to  warn  you 
and  to  try  to  help  you  save  your  property.  I  say  to 
you  now,  that  when  I  believe  this  nation  is  in  danger, 
when  I  believe  that  our  country  is  in  danger,  our 
common  life  and  our  common  liberties  are  in  peril, 
then  it  is  my  duty  to  warn  you,  it  is  my  duty  to  speak 
out  and  to  continue  to  speak  out  as  long  as  I  have  an 
opportunity  to  do  so. 

You  will  say,  if  you  went  into  my  house  and  saved 
my  goods,  you  might  burn  your  hands,  you  might 
injure  your  clothes.  True.  It  would  still  be  my  duty 
to  risk  my  clothing  and  my  hands  in  your  service. 

You  will  say  if  you  speak  out  today  against  these 
perils  in  the  land,  you  may  lose  your  job,  you  may 
lose  your  liberty.  And  I  answer  you  again  that  as  a 
citizen  it  is  my  sole  obligation  to  speak  out  when  I 
see  peril  ahead,  and  stand  the  loss  of  position  or  of 
liberty  or  any  other  loss  that  may  be  entailed  in  issu- 
ing the  necessary  warning. 

Gentlemen,  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  I  want  to  see 
America  free.  I  want  to  see  liberty,  opportunity  and 
democracy  here,  as  well  as  in  every  other  country  on 
earth.  As  long  as  America  is  not  free,  you  are  not  free 
and  I  am  not  free.  As  long  as  any  of  us  are  in  chains 
in  this  land,  we  are  all  in  chains.  As  long  as  any  are 
in  ignorance  in  the  land,  we  are  in  ignorance  to  that 
extent.  As  long  as  anybody  starves  in  the  land,  we 
starve.  As  long  as  anybody  suffers  from  despotism 
and  tyranny,  we  are  all  suffering  from  despotism  and 
tyranny.  We  belong  to  the  body  of  this  citizenship, 

209 


and  we  suffer  in  common  with  it,  and  we  benefit  in 
common  with  it. 

As  I  said  a  moment  ago,  the  only  principle  upon 
which  society  can  ever  be  built  is  the  principle  of  each 
for  all,  and  all  for  each.  The  principle  of  union,  the 
principle  of  joint  co-operative  action  for  the  benefit 
and  the  service  of  all. 

I  believe  that  that  action  is  the  action  of  the  people, 
the  action  of  the  masses,  of  mankind,  and  that  sooner 
or  later  they  will  insist  upon  their  rights. 

As  Lincoln  said,  "You  can  fool  some  of  the  people 
all  of  the  time  and  all  of  the  people  some  of  the  time, 
but  you  cannot  fool  all  of  the  people  all  of  the  time." 

The  peoples  all  over  the  world  are  coming  into  their 
own,  they  are  going  to  come  into  their  nvn  more  and 
more  as  the  years  go  by.  They  are  goin^  to  come  into 
their  own  in  the  United  States,  and  what  happens  to 
one  of  us  is  incidental  to  the  great  question  of  what 
happens  to  all  of  us. 

I  have  expressed  my  hopes,  my  ideals,  my  ambitions 
for  liberty  in  America,  and  for  brotherhood  and  peace 
among  all  people  of  the  world.  I  have  done  what  I 
could,  and  for  the  time  being  the  matter  is  in  your 
hands. 


210 


Seymour  Stedman's 
Summing  Up 

MR.  STEDMAN :  May  it  please  the  Court  and  you 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  evidence  in  this  case  is  upon 
a  very  wide  range,  all  the  way  from  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  to  international  finance  and  politics; 
from'  the  Mexican  border  to  Bagdad,  and  in  fact 
we  have  been  engaged  in  digging  into  all  parts  of  the 
world  during  the  last  two  days  to  a  certain  extent; 
and  all  the  evidence  that  has  been  admitted  as  a  legal 
proposition  and  under  your  oaths  as  jurors  has  been 
admitted  solely  to  define  and  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
ciding an  issue  within  a  very  narrow  compass. 

The  indictment  in  this  case,  with  the  counts  which 
have  been  submitted  to  you  for  your  judgment,  con- 
sists of  two  charges  against  two  individuals — I  am 
speaking  of  the  corporation  as  an  individual — the 
charge  against  the  Rand  School  is  that  it  attempted, 
wilfully  attempted  to  cause  insubordination,  disloy- 
alty, refusal  of  duty  and  mutiny  within  the  military 
and  naval  forces  of  the  United  States;  and  that  the 
Rand  School — I  am  not  going  to  give  it  any  other 
name  but  its  popular  name  now — did  obstruct  the 
recruiting  and  enlistment  service  of  the  United  States. 

These  two  charges  against  the  Rand  School  are 
predicated  and  based  upon  the  pamphlet  called  "The 
Great  Madness." 

The  same  two  charges  are  made  against  Scott  Near- 
ing.  You  are  to  consider  the  evidence  against  each 

211 


one  separately  and  apart  from  the  other.  It  is  true 
that  you  are  to  take  cognizance  of  the  fact  that  "The 
Great  Madness"  was  published  by  the  Rand  School, 
but  Nearing  is  not  responsible  for  what  may  have  been 
in  the  mind  of  the  Rand  School  and  its  officers ;  neither 
is  the  Rand  School,  for  the  purpose  or  what  was  in 
the  mind  of  Nearing.  So  that  considering  this  as 
jurors,  they  are  two  separate  and  distinct  defendants, 
taking  the  evidence  that  has  been  admitted  as  to  each 
separately,  and  determining  from  that  the  question  of 
guilt  or  innocence. 

The  Rand  School  was  started  some  twelve  years 
ago,  its  principal  donor  at  that  time  was  a  woman  who 
was  generally  known  to  the  public — Carrie  Rand,  and 
who,  I  believe,  was  a  pioneer  abolitionist.  They  com- 
menced in  a  private  building,  an  old  stone  building,  a 
private  residence.  The  scholarships  continued  to  in- 
crease, the  classes  grew,  and  in  1917,  upon  the  expira- 
tion of  a  lease  to  the  place,  there  were  some  of  them 
who  conducted — who  suggested  that  they  should  pur- 
chase a  new  and  a  larger  building. 

The  photographs  which  have  been  offered  in  evi- 
dence here  will  picture  to  you  the  building  which  was 
under  contemplation  and  which  is  now  the  home  of 
the  Rand  School  on  15th  Street. 

In  1917,  during  the  summer  and  the  late  spring,  the 
entire  forces  of  that  organization  were  engaged  in 
sending  out  letters  and  communications  for  the  pur- 
pose of  raising  $60,000  or  more.  It  was  during  that 
time  that  a  young  man,  who  had  charge  of  the  book 
department,  was  away  on  his  vacation.  Among  those 
who  had  addressed  classes  and  had  become  instructors 
in  this  institution  were  many  who  were  very  prominent 
in  the  universities  in  this  country.  The  courses  of  the 
studies  were  somewhat  extensive,  running  from  his- 

212 


tory  to  office  technique,  civics  and  literary  lines,  even 
running  classes  in  English  for  persons  who  were  not 
proficient  in  the  English  language. 

They  also  had  a  big  book  department,  the  primary 
object  of  which  was  to  carry  a  class  of  alert  literature, 
and  I  mean  by  that  a  class  of  literature  that  might  be 
distinguished  from  Thackeray  or  some  of  the  writers 
whose  books  are  only  sold  in  large  sets,  and  which 
involve  a  great  expenditure,  in  handling.  The  books 
that  they  were  handling  were  necessarily  of  a  class 
which  were  readily  sold  and  where  storage  expenses 
would  not  be  great  and  the  capital  invested  would  be 
very  limited ;  books  which  were  popular. 

There  were  contributors  or  writers  of  pamphlets 
whom  they  recognized  as  men  of  authority  and  whose 
views  they  generally  understood,  and  whose  manu- 
scripts were  accepted  without  challenge  outside  of  per- 
haps literary  correction. 

They  issued  a  year  book,  and  your  attention  has 
been  called  to  the  year  book  of  1916,  and  also  to  the 
year  book  of  1917  and  1918.  Mr.  Barnes  referred  to 
that  and  quoted  passages  from  that  book,  passages 
from  the  St.  Louis  platform  of  the  Socialist  Party, 
passages  from  the  immediate  program.  You  will  find 
a  great  deal  more  in  that  book.  You  will  find  quota- 
tions from  the  jjtetforms  and  documents  of  various 
political  parties.  Primarily,  however,  it  is  labor  and 
socialistic. 

The  book  store  was  run  for  the  purpose  of  selling 
books  on  all  sides  of  the  subject.  The  fact  that  in  the 
Year  Book  they  did  not  cover  the  ground  of  the  World 
Almanac  or  the  Daily  News  Almanac  or  the  statistical 
record  would  prove  nothing,  because  in  that  field  there 
was  no  function  for  them  to  perform  and  no  particular 
work,  but  there  was  something  in  the  other. 

213 


For  instance,  if  you  gather  up  some  books  and 
look  them  over,  you  will  find  a  record  such  as  we  find 
on  pages  16,  17,  18  and  19  here,  and  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  just  a  few  instances.  For  instance,  this  page 
contains  the  different  bills  introduced  in  the  legislative 
bodies  throughout  March,  April,  May,  June,  July  and 
August  in  1917.  That  is  the  record  of  the  bills  intro- 
duced to  abolish  child  labor  law  restrictions  and  sus- 
pending the  limitation  of  the  hours  of  labor  for  chil- 
dren, and  eliminating  the  restrictive  conditions  of 
women's  work  and  general  reactionary  legislation. 

Now,  it  was  a  legitimate  thing  for  the  organization 
to  publish  t\at  book.  To  publish  these  things  tabu- 
lated in  form  so  that  anyone  buying  the  book  might 
read  it.  That  certainly  does  not  determine  any  mental 
attitude  in  opposition  to  recruiting  or  obstructing  re- 
cruiting or  having  a  tendency  to  create  insubordina- 
tion and  disloyalty. 

Now  the  issuing  of  this  pamphlet  "The  Great  Mad- 
ness" came  about  from  the  sending  in  of  the  manu- 
script, the  book  being  written  probably  during  the 
period  that  the  selective  draft  law  was  in  considera- 
tion, was  received  by  the  society  after  the  first  of 
August  and  published  by  them  after  the  first  of  August 
and  circulated  mostly  of  course  after  that. 

The  proprietor  of  the  bookstore  read  portions  of  it 
and  recognized  the  fact  that  it  would  be  a  good  seller. 
It  had  Scott  Nearing's  name  attached  to  it.  And  mark 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  evidence  comes  from 
the  government's  witnesses.  They  are  to  prove  the 
case  against  the  defendants.  And  when  they  put  wit- 
nesses on  the  stand  against  the  defendant  called  by 
them,  and  their  own  witnesses  testified  that  they  had 
no  evil  intent,  they  are  precluded  by  that  fact.  In 
other  words,  the  evidence  as  to  the  Rand  School  cir- 

214 


culating  that,  comes  from  the  stand  here  and  comes 
here  vouched  for  by  the  government,  and  when  a  law- 
yer puts  a  witness  on  the  stand,  the  prosecution  or  the 
defense,  he  vouches — he  does  not  guarantee — but  he 
vouches  for  the  truthfulness  of  his  statements.  These 
were  not  men  produced  by  us  but  by  the  prosecution. 
They  put  them  on  the  stand  and  did  that  to  show 
the  printing  and  circulation.  They  proved  the  con- 
tents. Mr.  Cohen,  did  you  read  it?  Mr.  some  other 
man,  did  you  read  it?  Mrs.  Mailly,  did  you  read  it? 
What  was  the  purpose  of  the  examination?  To  show 
knowledge.  Yes,  and  coupled  along  with  such  knowl- 
edge as  they  had,  came  the  evidence  that  they  did  not 
publish  it  for  the  purpose  of  obstructing  the  recruiting 
and  enlistment  service,  or  for  causing  insubordination 
and  disloyalty.  The  government's  witnesses  exoner- 
ated the  defendant,  this  school. 

The  charge  in  the  indictment  in  this  case  is  confined 
to  the  particular  function  named.  We  are  not  con- 
cerned with  what  may  be  generally  termed  as  a  "state 
of  mind."  The  state  of  mind  generally  means  nothing 
when  it  comes  to  the  proof  of  a  prosecution  in  a  crim- 
inal case.  The  question  as  to  whether  the  person 
proposed  the  accomplishment  of  the  criminal  act 
charged  is  material.  Not  only  whether  they  proposed 
to  accomplish  the  result,  but  now  what  result  they 
intended  to  accomplish  and  pursued  the  course  to  ac- 
complish that  end.  In  other  words,  one  is  knowingly 
and  the  other  is  intentionally.  Intentionally,  that  is 
with  the  purpose.  Wilfully,  that  is,  with  complete 
knowledge  and  a  determination — a  will  to  act  and  ac- 
complish the  prohibited  end. 

Is  there  any  evidence  in  this  case  that  the  Rand 
School  by  publishing  twenty  thousand  copies  of  a  56- 
page  pamphlet,  in  the  face  of  issuing  some  350,000 
pieces  of  literature  in  a  year,  that  these  people  were  go- 

215 


ing  to  jeopardize  the  life  of  their  school,  with  these  four 
thousand  pupils ;  that  they  were  going  to  take  a  chance 
on  going  to  the  penitentiary  by  issuing  a  56-page 
pamphlet  dealing  with  a  theoretical  cause  of  the  war? 

Nothing  but  a  war  mania  could  have  brought  about 
a  prosecution  of  that  case  before  this  jury  or  any  jury, 
and  you  know  it.  Some  very  stupid  person,  possibly, 
might  have  issued  a  pamphlet  of  56  pages  to  accom- 
plish the  result  of  that  kind,  but  no  one  with  brains, 
no  one  like  these  people,  would  ever  do  it  in  the  world. 
If  they  wanted  to  obstruct  the  recruiting,  do  you  sup- 
pose they  would  issue  a  pamphlet  of  this  kind?  Do  you 
think  they  would  have  issued  a  theoretical  document? 
Not  at  all. 

Let  us  see  the  document  they  might  have  issued : 
Suppose  it  had  been  about  four  pages,  and  they  said, 
"Young  men  of  America,  you  have  been  reading  the 
papers  for  the  last  four  years — for  the  last  three  years, 
and  you  have  read  how  heaps  and  heaps  of  men  were 
dead  between  the  trenches,  that  is  between  the  French 
and  German  trenches,  and  how  they  poured  oil  on 
them,  and  they  burned  them,  and  the  smoke,  the  blue 
smoke,  the  fumes  went  one  way  and  the  other,  and  the 
odors  and  the  stench  from  it,  and  the  thousands  and 
thousands  that  are  raving  maniacs  in  Germany  and  in 
France." 

They  would  have  pointed  out  the  conditions  that  the 
newspapers  were  calling  their  attention  to  day  after 
day;  they  would  have  called  their  attention  to  their 
peaceful  homes  and  their  mothers  and  their  brothers 
and  their  sisters,  and  then  the  situation  here.  They 
could  have  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  traditions  of 
this  country  were  to  keep  out  of  foreign  alliances  and 
foreign  intrigues.  All  the  way  from  the  pest  house  all 
over  the  field  they  could  have  illustrated  that  the 
whole  of  Europe  was  one  great  madhouse,  and  could 

216 


have  made  references  to  arouse  their  passions  and 
their  prejudices,  and  then  said,  "¥oung  men,  are  you 
going  to  enlist?  We  are  civilized  men.  We  are  not 
beasts  that  we  should  be  crowded  into  such  as  that. 
Young  men,  do  not  enlist.  One  will  stand  by  the 
other." 

And  they  could  have  sent  that  out  by  the  hundreds 
of  thousands — they  would  have  done  so.  That  is  what 
I  mean  when  I  say  that  they  would  have  done  some- 
thing active,  something  real  in  that  line,  if  they  had 
intended  any  such  thing.  That  is  what  these  people 
would  have  done,  and  that  is  what  they  would  have 
had  the  courage  to  do,  if  they  had  believed  in  and  de- 
sired that  end. 

We  must  judge  men  and  women  by  three  general 
standards  in  a  case  of  this  kind :  First,  what  was  the 
defendant's  object?  Second,  the  intelligence  and  ac- 
complishments that  they  possessed  and  their  ability 
to  accomplish  that  object.  Third,  the  courage  to  carry 
out  that  intent. 

There  is  only  one  theory  upon  which  you  can  as- 
sume that  these  people  committed  the  offense  charged 
here,  and  that  is  that  they  are  arrant  cowards,  that  they 
did  really  believe  that  way,  but  they  didn't  have  the 
courage  to  do  it.  Maybe.  But  I  submit  that  we  have 
created  an  issue  here  that  does  not  sustain  that  theory. 
We  would  not  have  published  a  document  for  that 
purpose  containing  56  pages,  or  a  pamphlet  such  as 
has  been  offered  here,  and  the  district  attorney  knows 
that.  He  knows  that  very  well.  That  is  why  he  drew 
an  economic  issue  into  this  case  and  why  the  govern- 
ment put  in  the  other  issue  of  bonds.  That  is  a  ques- 
tion of  taxation  and  the  determining  of  the  question  of 
the  desirability  of  an  action. 

Hundreds  of  people  differ  on  the  question  of  raising 
revenue  by  one  method  or  another.  President  Wilson 

217 


insisted  that  it  should  be  paid  for  as  we  went  along. 
He  changed  his  opinion  on  that,  or  perhaps  if  he  didn't 
change  his  opinion,  he  didn't  continue  to  emphasize  it, 
because  he  saw  that  it  was  not  perhaps  a  practical 
proposition. 

Now  to  take  a  few  illustrations !  I  venture  to  say 
that  in  your  experience,  you  never  knew  of  a  person 
being  tried  for  smuggling  and  evidence  being  permit- 
ted to  be  introduced  before  the  jury  that  they  believed 
in  free  trade.  Counsel  in  answering  that  in  his  open- 
ing, and  I  anticipated  it,  said : 

"If  a  person  believed  in  free  trade  and  they  said  I 
will  not  pay  the  tax,  and  then  they  were  caught  with 
diamonds,  walking  through  the  revenue  office,  that 
wovxld  be  competent  evidence." 

He  put  in  his  statement  before  you,  "If  they  said  I 
will  not  pay  the  tax,"  and  then  "the  diamonds  were 
found  in  the  pocket,  that  would  be  a  part  of  the  trans- 
action." 

That  is  entirely  a  different  thing.  He  may  probably 
tell  you  gentlemen  when  he  sums  up,  that  if  a  man 
was  opposed  to  the  tariff,  that  that  would  be  com- 
petent evidence  to  prove  as  an  element,  that  he  was  a 
smuggler.  That  is  the  question;  would  it? 

Suppose  as  opposed  to  a  trust  law,  but  believing  that 
trusts  are  the  logical  and  natural  growth  of  industrial 
society  and  on  a  prosecution  for  forming  a  trust,  the 
prosecution  called  the  man  to  the  stand  and  you  say, 
"Mr.  Roberts,"  or  you  say,  "Mr.  Rogers,"  or  you  use 
any  other  name,  "Mr.  Harriman,"  or  any  other  man : 
"Do  you  believe  in  the  organization  of  industry  in  its 
highest  trustified  form?  A.  Yes."  It  is  contended 
that  that  is  evidence  to  prove  that  they  were  parties 
in  forming  an  illegal  combination. 

We  have  had  trust  cases  in  the  United  States,  a 
great  many  of  them,  and  in  all  States  of  the  Union. 

218 


If  you  can  find  one  authority  to  show  that  any  trust 
magnate  on  the  stand  was  ever  asked  such  a  question 
and  permitted  to  answer  it,  as  an  indication  that  he 
was  guilty  of  a  crime,  I  will  retire  from  this  case  and 
ask  my  client  to  plead  guilty.  And  yet  that  is  pre- 
cisely the  question  that  is  asked  of  him. 

"You  believe  in  war?  No."  That  is  a  general  state- 
ment, a  general  theory,  not  a  specific  one.  It  is  the 
same  as  if  a  person  believed  in  prohibition.  I  say, 
"You  believe  in  prohibition?  A.  Yes."  All  right. 
Perhaps  I  had  better  say:  "But  you  are  opposed  to 
prohibition."  Perhaps  in  these  times  that  would  be 
more  in  point  —  "Do  you  oppose  prohibition?  A. 
Yes."  Does  that  make  you  guilty  of  violating  the  law. 
for  importing  liquors  against  the  law? 

Counsel  in  his  opening  statement  said,  "Why  it  is 
true  that  if  a  man  says  'I  am  going  to  violate  the  pro- 
hibition law,'  and  then  he  puts  a  quarter  on  a  dummy 
that  goes  up  and  down,  you  can  introduce  evidence  to 
show  that  he  was  not  intending  to  buy  cigars."  Natur- 
ally, that  is  part  of  an  immediate  act. 

If  Nearing  had  said  to  anyone,  when  he  sent  this 
manuscript,  "I  hope  the  people  will  read  that  SP  they 
will  become  insubordinate;  I  hope  that  people  will 
read  that  because  I  believe  it  will  obstruct  the  recruit- 
ing or  enlistment  service,"  that  would  be  a  part  of  the 
proper  evidence  to  produce  here  in  regard  to  that 
matter. 

I  want  to  suggest  another  illustration:  We  are 
charged  here  with  obstructing  the  recruiting  and  en- 
listment service  of  the  United  States.  That  language 
is  fairly  plain,  and  we  have  a  right  to  assume  that  it  is 
written  for  the  understanding  of  the  average  citizen 
of  the  United  States.  We  have  a  right  to  assume  that 
it  is  not  simply  a  trick  clause,  to  trick  people. 

219 


Now  ,what  do  you  understand  by  ''service"?  And 
I  understand  I  may  say  that  maybe  the  court  will 
disagree  with  me  on  my  definition  here.  I  am  men- 
tioning it  particularly  because  it  goes  to  the  question 
of  wilfullness. 

What  do  you  understand  by  "service"?  A  person 
who  serves.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  "civil 
service"?  The  civil  laws  where  political  qualifications 
are  eliminated  in  favor  of  merit.  Departments  which 
are  operated  by  the  city,  state  or  the  government;  in 
time  of  peace  the  United  States  can  pass  a  law  like  this 
one,  and  in  that  law  say,  "Whoever  shall  obstruct  the 
civil  service  of  the  government,  the  postal  depart- 
ment," or  any  other  department,  "shall  be  punished  by 
imprisonment  from  one  to  twenty  years,  or  a  fine  of 
from  one  to  ten  thousand  dollars." 

They  can  pass  that  precisely  as  this  act,  and  instead 
of  putting  in  "army"  put  in  "postal  service,"  or  "patent 
office"  or  any  other  public  department. 

Now,  if  you  can  carry  this  question  to  a  purely  busi- 
ness basis,  in  an  act  of  that  kind  we  will  just  reason 
a  little  on  that  subject  and  see  where  it  would  lead  us 
to. 

I  am  a  young  man  on  the  street,  and  I  am  addressing 
a  meeting,  and  I  say,  "I  would  not  recommend  anyone 
to  enter  the  service  of  the  United  States  or  of  the  city. 
You  go  into  the  civil  service  departments  of  the  city 
or  the  government  and  you  will  find  men  who  started 
there  when  they  were  young,  and  they  have  lost  their 
ambition.  They  finally  reached  the  position  where 
they  have  not  the  courage  to  leave  the  service  and 
strike  out  for  themselves.  They  are  demoralized,  de- 
pendent upon  their  salary  week  by  week,  they  became 
a  part  of  that  machine,  you  cannot  tear  them  out  of  it. 
For  that  reason  I  would  recommend  that  no  man  enter 


220 


the  postal  service  or  patent  office  or  any  other  civil 
service  department  of  the  government." 

Would  I  be  obstructing  it?  According  to  the 
construction  which  Mr.  Barnes  has  placed  upon 
it  today  under  this  statute,  I  would  be  guilty 
of  a  crime.  Do  you  believe  that  liberty  is  so 
absolutely  paralyzed  and  dead  in  this  country 
that  you  could  not  make  the  remarks  which  I 
have  just  mentioned?  You  do  not.  You  know  that 
if  a  law  of  that  kind  were  passed,  that  I  would  still  have 
a  right  to  persuade  an  individual,  and  persuade  a 
group,  not  to  enter  the  postal  department  or  to  enter 
any  of  the  City  Hall  positions,  or  to  take  a  civil  service 
position,  because  the  opportunities  outside  were  bet- 
ter. That  would  be  a  legitimate  discussion.  I  would 
be  appealing  to  their  judgment  upon  that  proposition. 
I  would  be  appealing  against  the  civil  service  law, 
against  the  civil  service  department,  against  what 
might  be  conceived  by  me  as  a  sacrifice  of  their  lives 
in  the  civil  service  position  for  life.  That  would  be 
legitimate. 

When  this  law  was  passed  and  the  average  man  read 
it  he  understood  "service"  to  be  exactly  what  the  word 
means  in  plain  English,  and  in  every  single  dictionary 
that  may  be  found  in  the  English  language.  You  can 
not  define  service  except  on  the  theory  that  you  are 
serving  someone,  some  group,  or  state  or  some  indi- 
vidual. 

Counsel  may  suggest,  that  these  are  times  of  war, 
and  therefore  a  different  rule  applies.  My  answer  is 
that  it  does  not  apply;  that  the  same  rules  of 
law  apply  at  one  time  as  apply  at  another.  He  will 
tell  you  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  show  actual  ob- 
struction. I  say  that  it  is.  The  indictment  in  this  case 
says  they  obstructed.  It  does  not  say  that  Nearing 
attempted  to  obstruct.  The  indictment  does  not  say 

221 


that  the  Rand  School  attempted  an  obstruction;  the 
count  under  which  they  are  charged  there  says  that 
they  did,  intending  voluntarily  to  obstruct  the  recruit- 
ing and  enlistment  service  of  the  United  States,  and 
it  is  necessary  for  them,  under  this  count  of  the  indict- 
ment, to  prove  the  obstruction,  not  that  it  was  calcu- 
lated to  do  that,  not  that  it  was  possible,  not  that  it 
possibly  might  do  something,  or  that  the  natural  rea- 
sonable possibility  of  creating  an  obstruction ;  we  are 
charged  here  with  an  obstruction,  and  under  that  it 
is  necessary,  in  my  judgment,  to  show  by  evidence 
that  warrants  you  in  the  belief  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  that  there  was  an  actual  obstruction. 

Counsel  may  contend  and  say,  well,  that  which 
would  naturally  lead  a  person,  who  was  makir  .g  a  rush 
for  a  recruiting  station,  to  hesitate,  to  pause,  wjuld  be 
an  obstruction.  That  is  an  interpretation  which  coun- 
sel may  place  on  it.  It  may  be  an  interpretation  which 
the  court  may  place  on  it.  I  will  assume  it  was  ex- 
actly the  argument  or  even  that  it  is  true.  In  other 
words,  I  will  assume  that  obstruction  does  not  mean 
an  obstruction,  but  it  means  a  mental  condition  where 
a  person  hesitates  when  he  is  going,  we  will  say,  to 
the  recruiting  station.  Then  I  say  that  in  that  cate- 
gory they  proved  nothing,  they  failed  to  prove  it  be- 
cause— they  lack  evidence,  and  it  is  merely  a  conclu- 
sion they  have  been  unable  to  prove  that  anyone  was 
actually  affected  that  way.  But  his  contention  is  that 
they  don't  have  to  prove  it  because  that  is  the  natural 
meaning  and  intent  of  those  words.  I  reply,  let  us 
assume  that  that  is  so.  If  in  the  course  of  nine  or  ten 
months  a  leaflet  has  been  out,  and  you  find  anyone 
who  has  been  affected  by  it,  with  the  public  forces  at 
the  hand  of  the  district  attorney,  the  command  of  the 
secret  service  and  the  government's  police  detectives, 
and  the  men  who  are  in  private  organizations  in  camps 

222 


of  these  conscientious  objectors,  and  they  have  found 
no  one  during  all  that  time  who  comes  forward  and 
says,  "I  read  it  and  I  did  not  enlist."  What  would  be 
your  natural  inference  ?  What  can  you  draw  from  that 
except  that  it  didn't  have  that  effect? 

In  other  words,  if  a  man  is  five  feet  from  a  man  and 
he  shoots  forty  shots  at  him,  and  he  is  a  good  shot, 
and  doesn't  hit  him,  there  is  but  one  conclusion,  and 
that  is,  that  he  didn't  intend  to  hit  him. 

If  there  are  twenty  thousand  pamphlets  going  out 
and  not  a  single  individual  is  brought  in  who  is  influ- 
enced by  it,  the  logic  of  it  is  that  the  persons  that 
read  it  never  understood  it  in  the  way  the  prosecuting 
attorney  has  understood  it.  And  he  will  not  bring  in 
any  one  here,  he  has  not  suggested  that  anyone  was 
influenced  by  it  at  all. 

If  you  knew  that  the  Postmaster  of  New  York,  or 
that  the  Postmaster  General  with  the'  corps  of  officers 
in  his  employ,  was  reading  every  particle  of  literature 
that  was  in  circulation,  and  especially  that  coming 
from  organizations  that  they  regarded  as  not  wholly 
in  favor  of  our  interest  in  the  war,  and  that  those 
articles  were  copyrighted,  and  that  it  went  for  one 
month,  for  tw,^  months,  for  three  months,  for  four 
months,  for  five  months,  in  fact  from  August  to  May, 
without  a  single  protest  from  the  postal  department, 
would  you  regard  that  as  a  fair  circumstance  to  indi- 
cate that  not  only  the  defendants,  but  the  government 
departments  did  not  regard  it  as  violating  this  section  ? 

Counsel  will  argue  that  they  are  two  different  de- 
partments. That  is  true.  He  will  argue  that  one  does 
not  necessarily  have  any  control  of  the  other.  That 
is  true.  He  may  suggest  that  Mr.  Lamar  is  solicitor- 
general  for  the  Post  Office,  and  that  he  has  in  his  de- 
partment, operating  particularly  on  these  matters 
John  Lord  O'Brien,  who  is  particularly  in  charge  of 

223 


those  matters,  and  I  say  to  you,  if  the  men  who  are  in 
charge  of  the  postal  department,  and  are  looking  for 
violations,  did  not  find  this  criminal  in  its  character, 
it  is  a  circumstance  to  be  reckoned  with  in  determining 
the  question  of  whether  it  was  obviously  and  plainly 
a  violation  of  the  law,  and  as  to  whether  it  came  within 
the  provisions  which  are  denounced  by  the  act. 

The  first  proposition  that  we  called  to  your  atten- 
tion was  this,  whether  you  as  jurors  will  consider  that 
the  reasonable  hypothesis  of  innocence,  was  not  dis- 
carded with  the  throwing  out  of  the  two  counts  which 
were  the  first  in  the  indictment  in  this  case.  However, 
we  are  not  concerned  with  that.  We  are  concerned, 
however,  with  the  subject  of  a  reasonable  doubt. 

We  are  concerned  with  the  presumption  of  inno- 
cence which  surrounds  the  defendants  in  this  case,  and 
that  presumption  if  carried  into  this  case  negatives 
the  theory  upon  which  they  now  ask  for  a  conviction. 

When  I  think  of  the  evidence  in  this  case  in  its 
entirety,  I  find  that  it  occurs  to  me  that  there  are  re- 
latively few  details  to  really  argue.  As  I  listened  to 
Mr.  Nearing  this  morning  while  he  was  addressing 
you,  I  was  wondering  how  a  man  could  address  a  jury, 
discussing  a  general  economic  theory  which  he  ad- 
vanced so  consistently  and  so  consistent  with  the  the- 
ories which  were  advanced  from  the  witness  stand, 
and  yet  leave  any  doubt  in  any  juror's  mind  or  a  dis- 
trict attorney's  mind  as  to  what  his  general  bent  was 
and  what  his  general  purpose  and  object  was.  How 
a  person  who  has  been  so  open,  and  so  plain  in  his 
statements,  and  the  books  which  he  has  written,  which 
disclose  his  entire  motive  and  his  entire  object  and  his 
entire  purpose  could  leave  any  question  in  the  mind  of 
any  man  as  to  whether  or  not  he  intended  to  specifi- 
cally do  the  thing  which  is  charged  in  this  case.  If 

224 


it  were  not  that  we  were  in  war  times  a  case  of  this 
kind  would  never  be  brought,  and  I  do  not  mean  by 
that,  that  if  it  were  not  for  war  there  might  be  a 
statute  of  this  kind.  But  I  do  mean  that  when  an  in- 
dictment was  returned  in  this  case,  it  was  returned  as 
is  plainly  evident,  to  stop  a  certain  line  of  discussion 
and  not  because  there  was  actually  any  faith  in 
the  fact  that  a  crime  was  committed,  or  a  jury  would 
find  that  there  had  been  a  crime  committed. 

Mr.  Barnes  down  in  his  heart  does  not  believe  that 
there  has  been,  that  either  of  these  defendants  in  this 
case  are  guilty  of  the  crime  charged.  He  is  perform- 
ing his  duty.  He  is  clearing  up  the  remnant  cases  that 
were  started  in  this  court  during  the  time  when  that 
war  was  in  its  height,  and  in  its  progress,  and  when 
they  thought  that  someone  might  step  over  the  border 
line.  He  will  never  be  able  to  suggest  before  you  any 
theory  upon  which  intelligent  men  and  intelligent 
scholars  and  intelligent  women  would  issue  a  docu- 
ment of  this  kind  and  to  accomplish  the  result  which 
he  says  they  intended  in  this  case. 

The  court  will  instruct  you  that  motive  does  not 
make  any  difference.  That  is,  supposing  he  was  inter- 
ested in  the  child  labor  question.  Supposing  on  that 
question  you  can  picture  the  children  twelve  years  old 
and  thirteen  years  of  age  in  the  factories,  which  aroused 
his  thoughts  and  ambitions  to  change  their  mode  of  life. 
You  might  even  picture  hundreds  of  them  standing 
here  at  the  bar  pleading  for  him  who  pleaded  for  them 
when  they  were  unable  to  speak  for  themselves,  yet 
that  motive  would  not  justify  the  acts  charged  here 
because  whether  his  object  was  to  do  good  or  bad,  the 
court  may  instruct  you  it  makes  no  difference.  We 
will  concede  that  for  the  sake  of  argument,  but  we  then 
meet  the  other :  If  that  wasn't  his  purpose,  what  was 

225 


it?  Was  it  the  purpose  of  the  Rand  School,  when  they 
published  this  book,  to  cause — that  is  was  the  result  in- 
subordination and  obstruction  or  was  that  the  object 
of  their  conduct? 

The  fact  that  they  were  against  the  war  is  not  evi- 
dence that  can  be  used  against  these  gentlemen  on 
this  issue.  The  issue  is  not  that,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  evidence  here  that  he  was  or  that  the  school 
was,  except  "The  Great  Madness."  There  is  nothing 
in  "The  Great  Madness"  where  there  is  any  solicita- 
tion or  advice — and  I  use  "solicitation"  and  "advice" 
because  they  were  used  in  the  indictment — nothing 
there  about  soliciting  anyone  to  become  insubordinate 
or  not  to  enlist. 

What  is  their  theory?  Their  theory  is  this:  We 
have  gone  into  the  language  of  the  book.  There  is  no 
solicitation  in  the  language  of  the  book;  there  is  no 
advice  given  not  to  enlist,  but  did  it  have  that  effect? 

First,  in  point,  did  it  have  that  effect  upon  a  person 
who  was  predisposed  not  to  enlist  because  that  would 
be  monstrous,  that  would  not  be  considerable?  In 
other  words,  a  person  who  would  issue  a  book  describ- 
ing the  form  and  the  method  of  the  commission  of  a 
murder,  as  a  part  of  a  story,  and  someone  went  and 
took  that  and  committed  murder,  you  cannot  hold  the 
man  who  wrote  the  book  as  guilty  of  murder,  as  that 
is  a  part  of  his  story. 

If  a  person  advances  a  theory  and  someone  predis- 
posed in  the  beginning  says,  that  that  forfeited  him 
in  his  belief  not  to  do  what  he  knew  he  should  do,  and 
said  that  that  deterred  him  from  doing  it,  that  would 
then  not  be  within  the  purview  of  the  intent  which  we 
are  trying  to  prove  here.  It  is  not  a  matter  of,  did  it 
have  that  effect  on  anybody.  It  is  this :  What  was  the 

226 


necessary  and  the  natural  effect  of  that  book  on  the 
average  normal  individual,  and  would  it  in  such  indi- 
viduals result  in  obstruction?  Would  it  on  such  officers 
and  persons  in  the  service  cause  them  to  mutiny  or  to 
be  disloyal? 

Now,  if  the  effect  must  be  upon  the  average  human 
being  and  not  on  one  who  is  demented  or  predisposed, 
then  cannot  you  say,  that  they  would  be  able  to  pro- 
duce some  witnesses,  some  one  who  would  say  that 
they  were  affected  by  it?  If  the  government  had  any 
such,  do  you  think  for  a  moment  that  they  would  not 
have  been  produced,  if  there  had  been  the  slightest 
evidence  of  anybody  that  had  been  affected  that  way? 
Would  this  have  the  effect  upon  thinking  people,  the 
result  of  producing  what  the  government  claims  was 
calculated  to  be  produced,  would  it  have  the  result  up- 
on the  average  human  being?  And  suppose  there  were 
a  thousand  people  in  the  country  who  had  heard  a  cer- 
tain thing,  placed  before  them  a  certain  idea,  don't  you 
suppose  that  there  would  be  at  least  a  few  persons  of 
those  thousand  who  could  be  found  who  would  testify 
to  that  effect  upon  them,  if  it  was  calculated  to  have 
effect  upon  anybody,  and  did  have  an  effect  upon  any- 
body? If  that  is  so,  would  not  there  be  one  of  them 
here  to  prove  this  was  a  fact  in  at  least  one  instance? 

Gentlemen,  I  will  hurry  along.  The  Court  will  in- 
struct you  in  this  case  as  to  the  law,  but  I  want  to 
return  to  the  Rand  School  for  a  moment. 

A  corporation  is  responsible  for  the  acts  of  its  agent 
within  the  rule  of  the  real  or  implied  scope  of  his  au- 
thority. In  explanation  of  that  let  me  say  that  if  a 
person  is  running  a  book  store  and  an  agent  of  the 
book  store  went  out  and  bought  a  ton  of  dynamite  it 

227 


would  be  perfectly  apparent  he  would  not  be  acting 
within  the  scope  of  his  authority. 

So  that  if  the  man  went  out  and  made  that  purchase 
for  some  purpose  or  other,  that  would  not  be  in  the 
direct  line  of  his  work,  that  is,  within  the  real  author- 
ity that  he  had,  that  would  be  an  individual  act  of  his. 
That  is,  if  a  corporation  does  what  it  does,  it  has  to  do 
that  through  its  agents  and  board  of  directors.  If 
the  board  of  directors  had  instructed  him  to  go  out 
and  perform  some  specific  act,  then  that  is  within  his 
scope  of  authority,  that  is,  within  the  authority  dele- 
gated to  him  by  that  board. 

Now  in  this  instance  the  boy  who  was  in  the  book 
store  was  not  instructed  by  them  to  publish  this  par- 
ticular thing,  this  particular  book,  in  violation  of  law. 
Now  bear  this  thing  in  mind,  that  there  were  lawyers 
on  that  board  of  directors :  there  was  Mr.  Hillquit  at 
one  time ;  and  there  were  other  men  of  affairs  on  that 
board  of  directors,  for  instance,  like  Mr.  Lee,  an  Alder- 
man of  the  City  of  New  York,  was  also  associated  with 
them  on  that  board,  and  he  was  the  educational  direc- 
tor. All  these  persons  were  associated  on  that  board. 

Now  unless  they  specifically  directed  the  man  to  do 
it,  or  if  it  was  not  within  the  implied  scope  of  his  au- 
thority, they  cannot  be  held  liable  for  the  character  of 
literature  that  they  published. 

In  other  words,  suppose  you  went  over  to  a  pub- 
lishing firm,  like  Houghton,  MifHin  Company,  or  some 
man  went  over  there  and  handed  to  a  clerk  a  manu- 
script of  a  book  to  have  it  published  and  the  book  was 
a  book  on  burglary  and  that  book  was  published ;  and 
that  book  treated  on  methods  of  burglarizing  the  safe 
in  a  bank,  the  use  of  various  tools,  electric  torches  and 
electric  drills  and  possible  curtain  effects  to  be  used 
in  connection  therewith,  and  all  of  those  things,  and 

22S 


such  a  book  was  published  by  that  concern,  you  could 
easily  see  that  the  stockholders  of  that  company  could 
not  be  held  responsible  unless  this  particular  book  and 
its  publications,  that  is,  the  contents  of  the  book  and 
the  authorization  for  the  publication  thereof  had  been 
brought  to  their  attention  and  they  had  passed  upon 
it  before  it  was  published. 

Of  course,  along  with  that,  if  you  found  that  they 
had  been  publishing  books  or  treatises  on  the  art  of 
picking  pockets  and  other  crimes  of  that  character, 
then  you  might  well  say  it  is  within  the  same  class- 
ification of  books  that  they  have  been  publishing  and 
you  could  well  say  that  it  was  their  design,  and  that 
it  was  the  same  general  purpose  of  their  entire  litera- 
ture. 

Now  it  will  be  pointed  out  that  the  general  literature 
published  by  the  Rand  School  was  for  the  purpose  of 
violating  no  law  of  the  United  States,  military  or 
otherwise.  And  at  this  time  it  may  be  proper  to  call 
your  attention  along  with  the  other  literature  to  which 
I  have  referred,  to  the  books  that  have  been  published 
in  opposition  to  socialism,  to  the  fact  that  there  were 
publications  put  out  by  this  book  store  in  favor  of  the 
war,  that  is,  for  the  side  of  the  propagandists  also, 
gotten  out  by  those  who  were  specifically  in  favor  of 
the  war  and  its  conduct,  as  well  as  those  who  were 
opposed  to  it. 

And  in  that  connection  I  come  to  the  "Menace  of 
Peace"  by  George  D.  Herron,  and  to  a  passage  in  that 
book  which  says : 

"A  peace  based  upon  a  drawn  battle  between  the 
Germanic  Powers  and  the  Allies  is  nothing  else  than 
the  capitulation  of  the  world  to  Prussian  might  and 
mastery.  And  it  would  not  only  be  a  German  triumph 
that  such  a  peace  would  procure,  but  a  triumph  im- 

229 


measurably  more  terrible  in  its  full  and  final  results 
than  Germany  could  have  won  by  force  of  arms,  even 
had  they  been  successful. 

"I  believe  I  am  safe  in  predicting  that  the  victory 
of  the  Allies  will  lead  to  the  banishment  of  war  from 
our  planet.  But  if  Germany  remains  armed,  the  rest 
of  the  world  must  remain  armed  also,  and  the  arma- 
ment increased  instead  of  decreased.  A  defeated  Ger- 
many is  the  only  condition  of  universal  peace.  A  peace 
that  left  Germany  with  her  weapons  in  her  hands 
would  be  no  peace  but  a  preparation  for  wars  im- 
measurably more  terrible  than  the  one  that  now  baffles 
our  hopes  for  humanity.  Germany  would  soon  be 
ready  to  fight  more  advantageously  than  she  is  fight- 
ing now;  and,  against  the  greater  German  menace, 
England  and  France  would  be  obliged  to  maintain  the 
large  conscriptive  armies  their  peoples  detest. 

"The  present  German  mind  is  in  truth  the  deadliest 
enemy,  the  harshest  and  yet  subtlest  seducer  that  the 
soul  of  the  world  has  ever  had  to  meet." 

By  the  way,  this  that  I  am  reading  here  is  in  italics. 

"Say  not  we  are  the  enemies  of  the  German  race 
who  thus  speak.  Not  we,  but  themselves,  are  the  real 
enemies  of  the  German  peoples.  We  stand  against 
that  for  which  Germany  fights;  we  are  against  the 
Prussian  idea,  against  its  power  over  Germany, 
against  its  purpose  to  conquer;  but  for  the  German 
peoples  we  wish  only  well.  It  is  for  their  freedom  as 
well  as  for  ours  we  contend,  and  contend  with  pain  in 
our  hearts.  Germany's  true  lovers  are  they  who  now 
stand  against  her,  they  who  make  war  upon  the  lie 
that  enslaves  and  slays  her  soul.  The  France  that 
Germany  has  invaded  is  sacrificing  her  sons  for  Ger- 

230 


many  as  well  as  for  herself.  There  are  Germans,  yes, 
there  are  thousands  of  understanding  Germans,  who 
are  today  praying  for  Germany's  defeat  as  her  only 
hope  of  salvation.  As  Edward  Bernstein  has  recently 
said,  'Unless  the  war  ends  for  Germany  in  definite 
defeat'  her  middle  class  parties  will  'by  hook  or  crook' 
maintain  her  existing  militarism,  and  the  menace  of 
German  militarism  means  the  eventual  madness  of 
mankind. 

"To  me,  there  are  no  two  ways,  there  is  but  one  way 
wherein  believers  in  freedom  and  fraternity,  or  they 
who  hold  to  the  true  socialist  faith,  or  the  followers 
of  the  faith  that  was  in  Christ,  may  consistently  walk. 
Before  us,  beckoning  along  that  way,  are  the  banners 
of  Alfred  of  England  and  Albert  of  Belgium.  The 
swords  of  Jeanne  d'Arc  and  St.  Louis  are  there ;  and 
the  tread  of  the  Garibaldians  and  the  first  French 
Republicans.  The  voices  of  Milton  and  Mazzini  and 
Lincoln;  and  the  visions  of  the  Divine  Assisian  and 
the  Patmos  Apostle." 

This  is  a  book  of  the  style  that  they  had  on  sale 
there  that  was  in  favor  of  war,  this  was  one  among 
many  that  they  had.  The  point  of  it  all  is  to  show 
that  there  was  literature  on  both  sides.  They  were  not 
asking  people  to  their  store  to  buy  only  one 
specific  line  of  literature,  but  they  gave  both  kinds, 
both  sides,  each  was  equally  free  to  be  purchased  that 
would  throw  light  either  on  one  side  or  the  other  of 
the  proposition. 

Now  you  must  believe  that  within  Karpf's  actual  au- 
thority now,  that  he  published  this  pamphlet,  and  that 
he  published  it  with  the  intent  of  violating  the  law; 
that  they  authorized  him  to  violate  the  law  and  that 
it  was  within  the  implied  scope  of  his  authority,  one 
of  those  two.  That  is,  considering  first  the  general 
work  and  the  general  publishing  that  he  got  out,  that 

231 


they  or  he  expected,  and  it  was  within  their  obvious 
intention,  that  they  were  publishing  the  work  quite  in 
violation  of  law. 

Now  as  to  reasonable  doubt.  Of  course  some  of  you 
who  have  served  on  juries  have  had  that  explained. 
Generally,  courts  define  a  reasonable  doubt  as  a  doubt 
based  on  reason  which  you  know.  That  has  always  ap- 
pealed to  me  as  not  as  clear  as  has  been  defined  by 
Chief  Justice  Field  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massach- 
usetts, who  defines  reasonable  doubt  as  a  doubt  which 
would  cause  a  reasonable  and  prudent  man  to  pause 
and  hesitate  in  the  greater  affairs  and  transactions  of 
life. 

Bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  the  presumption  of 
innocence  is  always  with  the  defendant  and  if,  after 
considering  all  the  evidence  any  juror  in  his  mind 
pauses  and  hesitates  as  to  what  his  verdict  may  be, 
the  law  steps  in  and  demands  a  verdict  of  not  guilty. 

Now  I  doubt  not  the  Court  will  say  to  you  and  so 
instruct  you,  that  you  have  no  right  to  conjure  up 
capricious  doubts,  fanciful  theories,  for  the  purpose  of 
creating  doubt  when  no  doubt  should  in  fact  exist. 
That  is  true  equally  as  to  your  duty  after  there  is  some 
doubt.  You  should  to  conjure  up  capricious  reasoning 
or  fanciful  reasoning,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  or 
dispelling  the  doubt  to  try  to  say  that  there  is  no  doubt 
when  there  is. 

That  explanation  works  equally  on  both  sides. 

Now  returning  again  for  a  moment  to  Nearing,  be- 
fore closing :  the  Army  and  Navy  League  issued  leaf- 
lets and  issued  their  other  publications,  which  were  not 
for  general  circulation.  Mr.  Nearing  commented  on 
them  and  called  your  attention  to  them.  The  whole 
tenor  of  their  publications  from  beginning  to  end  was 
one  of  commercialism.  In  no  instance  in  all  that  I  read 
from  there  did  they  maintain  that  their  argument  for 

232 


preparedness  was  to  secure  or  maintain  human  rights 
permanently  above  all  rights;  neither  was  it  even  for 
a  localized  national  integrity. 

Just  one  or  two  portions  that  I  wish  to  read  to  you 
from  here: 

"Do  Americans  realize  that  one  of  the  reasons  why 
we  must  of  necessity  be  intensely  concerned  in  the 
submarine  and  trade  warfare  now  waged  between 
Germany  and  the  Allies  is  that  in  not  having  any  ships 
of  our  own  with  which  to  carry  our  four  billion  dollars 
worth  of  merchandise  and  the  German  ships  being 
unavailable,  that  we  will  lose  our  two  billion  dollars 
worth  of  export  trade  unless  merchant  shipping  of  the 
Allies  are  free  and  able  to  carry  our  goods?" 

"This  question  faces  us  squarely  in  this  country : 

"Will  we  continue  to  jeopardize  our  four  billion- 
dollar  trade  with  the  world  by  trusting  to  luck,  fate, 
or  the  good  will  of  fighting  nations  which  may  have 
the  shipping  in  which  to  carry  our  goods  to  safety 
or  destruction?" 

Again  we  see  the  idea  is  to  afford  avenues  for  the 
products  of  labor  to  be  reinvested  in  foreign  lands — 
another  capitalistic  outgrowth. 

Then  again : 

"German  standards  of  militarism  would,  of  course, 
be  impossible  among  Anglo-Saxons — "  I  don't  know 
why  they  so  defined  it,  and  limited  it — "but  this  does 
not  minimize  the  fact  that  world  empire  is  the  only 
natural  and  logical  aim  of  a  nation  that  desires  to 
remain  a  nation. 

"We  have  now  on  our  hands,  it  seems  to  me,  a  white 
elephant  to  some,  a  Republican  Empire,  and  no  longer 
such  a  question  of  doubting  whether  or  not  to  have  a 
navy  as  large  as  England's.  The  navy,  for  a  coast 
line  such  as  the  United  States  possesses,  a  navy  which 
could  uphold  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  now  moribund, 

233 


such  a  navy  must  be  at  least  twice  the  size  of  the 
British  navy.  And  the  first  step  to  be  taken  so  as  to 
secure  that  sized  navy  is  for  the  American  citizen  to 
shake  off  the  timorous  manner  which  is  our  charac- 
teristic, in  asserting  our  Federal  rights.  The  imper- 
ialism of  the  American  is  a  duty,  a  credit  to  humanity. 
He  is  the  highest  type  of  imperial  master.  He  makes 
beautiful  the  land  he  touches,  beautiful  with  moral  and 
the  physical  cleanliness  which  sounds  rather  prosaic 
but  is  nevertheless  the  principal,  happiness  for  the 
savage  if  not  for  the  imperialist." 

We  are  getting  now  to  where  we  are  going  to  have 
the  savage  in  our  midst  satisfied. 

"England  certainly  owns  or  has  in  some  way  a  very 
large  portion  of  the  earth's  land  surface  and  practi- 
cally has  for  some  time,  until  quite  recently,  controlled 
the  oceans  which  cover  the  hidden  land  surface.  There 
should  be  no  doubt  that  even  with  all  possible  morals, 
it  is  the  absolute  right  of  a  nation  to  live  to  its  full 
intensity,  to  expand,  to  found  colonies,  to  get  richer 
and  richer  by  any  proper  means  such  as  armed  con- 
quest, commerce,  diplomacy." 

In  reply  to  this,  when  we  are  already  developing 
along  those  lines,  with  those  theories  advanced  by 
such  governmental  authorities  as  this  that  I  have 
quoted  you,  is  it  any  wonder  that  Nearing,  in  reading 
it,  expressed  his  opinions  as  any  American  having  the 
good  of  his  country  at  heart,  of  mankind  at  heart, 
would  have  expressed  them,  or  at  least  laid  them  be- 
fore his  countrymen  for  their  consideration.  The 
same  theory  that  the  economic  basis  provided,  he  em- 
phasizes. What  is  the  difference?  This:  they  are 
publishing  one  for  commercializing,  and  the  other  ar- 
ticle, let  me  recall  to  you,  was  insisting  upon  this  policy 
so  that  there  might  be  large  dividends  to  munitions 
manufacturers,  etc.  Their  publication  went  out  as  a 

234 


trade  journal,  to  give  information  to  those  who  were 
guarding  the  commerce  of  the  country,  those  who  un- 
derstood and  are  prosecuting  or  sustaining  the  indus- 
trial institutions  and  welfare  of  the  c®untry. 

As  against  that,  his  goes  to  another  class :  they  went 
to  the  man  on  the  street,  to  the  man  in  the  factory,  or 
the  elevator,  to  the  average  man  who  has  as  much 
right  to  have  a  full  and  complete  knowledge  of  the 
facts  presented  to  his  mind  as  any  other  man  has. 

The  distinction  between  the  autocracy  and  the  de- 
mocracy is  the  fact  that  the  man  on  the  street  has  a 
right  to  all  the  facts  necessary  to  judge,  and  after 
forming  his  judgment  to  attempt  to  cause  changes  in 
the  opinion  of  those  who  are  supposed  to  represent 
him. 

We  believe,  at  least  in  theory,  that  our  purpose  of 
having  different  parties  is  that  a  few  men  have  not 
the  right  by  a  chance  of  an  election,  to  arrogate  to 
themselves  the  complete  guiding  of  the  destiny  of  the 
American  people,  that  they  being  wholly  informed  and 
they  having  the  facts  and  knowledge  sufficient  to 
know  to  what  extent  their  country  and  its  systems  and 
policies  are  drafted — that  is  the  common  people's  right. 
There  can  be  no  policy  in  a  republican  government 
that  is  definite  or  settled,  if  the  average  man  repre- 
senting the  minority  of  the  people  of  the  country, 
has  not  the  right  to  express  his  opinions  based  on  all 
of  these  general  facts  which  are  common  knowledge, 
and  we  claim  that  he  has  a  right  to  urge  his  theories 
to  convince  if  he  can,  the  people  to  his  way  of  think- 
ing. The  moment  you  strike  down  the  right  of  those 
having  theories  to  advance,  to  try  to  bring  the  majority 
of  the  people  to  their  way  of  thinking,  you  strike  down 
the  right  under  the  constitution  of  the  minority  to  try 
to  have  their  opinions  adopted  by  the  majority.  The 
moment  you  destroy  the  privilege  of  a  minority  to 

235 


speak,  whether  it  is  a  single  individual  or  a  party,  you 
stop  progress,  and  all  chance  of  progress,  and  you 
simply  ossify  and  become  fixed  in  character  and  type. 
If  they  are  not  allowed  to  tell  you  what  else  they 
believe,  and  to  meet  the  objections  to  the  existing 
conditions,  we  would  then  have  imperial  America  to 
all  intents  and  purposes. 

I  say  even  to  you  now,  that  I  doubt  not,  once  we 
take  the  position,  that  if  the  system  under  which  we 
live  is  to  prevail,  America  must  be  imperialistic,  that 
is  indispensable  and  it  must  be  so  of  necessity.  'There 
is  no  other  existence  possible  in  the  direction  in  which 
she  is  leaning  if  her  citizens  do  not  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  entering  their  objections,  not  only  one  or 
two,  but  what  occur  to  them  by  way  of  advocating 
their  theories.  Because,  in  becoming  imperialistic, 
you  begin  investing  entirely  in  foreign  lands  and  the 
time  comes  that  the  foreign  fields  of  investment  are 
exhausted.  Then  what  happens?  They  have  been 
deflecting  your  industry  from  the  states,  of  Connecti- 
cut, of  Kentucky,  of  Maine,  Washington,  Florida,  or 
any  other  states  of  the  Union,  and  the  investments  are 
made  in  foreign  lands  and  when  you  make  your  invest- 
ments outside  of  any  country,  that  is  outside  of  one's 
own  country,  there  surely  will  come  a  time  when  those 
investments  will  proceed  still  farther,  just  as  you  start 
a  current  going  from  within,  it  keeps  going  and  en- 
larging until  it  gets  to  the  coast,  and  then  it  goes  over 
the  coast  line,  and  then  as  it  goes  over  the  coast  line 
ultimately  you  run  down  to  where  you  can  go  no  fur- 
ther, and  in  this  case  in  your  investments  and  exports. 
If  you  go  outside  of  your  own  states,  it  follows  that 
with  the  constant  expansion,  which  is  the  only  life 
under  which  the  socialists  contend  the  country  can 
exist  under  what  we  speak  of  as  the  capitalistic  system, 
the  point  comes  when  you  can  go  no  further.  It  is 

236 


there,  where  the  Army  and  Navy  League  differ  en- 
tirely from  Nearing.  Nearing  is  stating  a  solution, 
when  you  reach  that  point,  and  his  is  an  attempt  to 
point  that  out  before  we  reach  it,  that  it  may  not  come 
to  us  unadvised. 

I  want  to  read  a  portion,  a  couple  of  paragraphs 
here,  beginning  with  the  third  book'  in  "Social  Sanity," 
which  was  an  attempt  to  show  by  that  book: 

"That  changes  were  bound  to  occur,  and  that  if  we 
are  wise  and  far-sighted,  and  if  we  understand  what 
is  coming,  they  can  occur  sanely  and  intelligently  and 
constructively,  but  that  if  we  are  stupid  and  dogged, 
and  refuse  to  see  what  is  coming,  the  changes  come, 
overtake  and  wreck  our  civilization." 

That  is  not  the  language  of  a  man  who  is  reckless 
of  the  law,  reckless  of  his  responsibility,  or  who  be- 
lieves in  chaos  or  discord.  That  is  not  the  language 
of  a  man  who  is  going  out  into  the  country  counselling 
and  persuading  or  trying  to  get  half  a  dozen  soldiers 
not  to  go  into  the  army,  not  to  go  into  the  service 
themselves,  not  with  that  sort  of  language ;  nor  is  that 
the  language  of  a  man  who  is  going  around  to  try  to 
induce  a  corporal  to  kill  his  captain  or  a  private  to  kill 
his  colonel.  An  idiotic  proposition  of  that  kind  is  al- 
most impossible  for  you  gentlemen  or  for  me  to  think 
of,  and  think  of  this  case  seriously,  for  a  moment.  But 
if  we  use  the  ordinary  logic  and  reasoning  that  we  use 
in  our  ordinary  affairs,  you  see  how  impossible  it  is 
for  us  to  think  so. 

Suppose  that  a  man  should  come  in  here  and  state, 
we  will  say  into  some  railroad  station  or  any  other 
place,  and  state  that  when  the  train  comes  in  he  is 
going  to  stop  the  functioning  of  the  government,  he  is 
going  to  overcome  the  present  government  by  stop- 
ping the  sale  of  postage  stamps,  and  he  is  going  to 
urge  that  on  the  people.  Such  a  proposition  as  that, 

387 


such  a  suggestion  as  that  would  appeal  to  you  as  ut- 
terly absurd  and  impossible. 

The  same  proposition  might  be  applied  to  the  stop- 
ping of  men  going  into  the  police  service  or  the  secret 
service,  and  he  might  take  the  position  that  he  was 
going  in  this  way  to  overcome  all  the  present  forms 
of  government,  especially  the  one  under  which  he  is 
living.  You  gentlemen  can  see  how  absurd  such  a 
proposition  as  that  would  be. 

Right  here  you  come  and  take  up  this  proposition, 
here  a  lone  man,  a  lone  individual,  issues  a  pamphlet 
for  the  purpose,  it  is  claimed,  of  stopping  voluntary 
enlistments  or  recruiting  in  an  army  of  five  million 
men,  with  the  public  sentiment  and  the  public  press 
in  thousands  of  papers  large  and  small,  and  speakers 
in  the  cities  and  the  towns,  all  of  them  whooping  it 
up  and  declaring  aloud  the  necessity  for  the  war,  and 
against  that  public  sentiment,  against  that  press, 
against  all  these  periodicals,  and  against  the  stump 
speeches,  and  the  counselling  of  these  thousands  of 
men,  and  against  the  private  organizations  that  are 
in  existence  in  many  of  the  states  for  the  purpose  of 
rooting  out  pro-Germanism,  etc.,  all  over  the  country, 
throughout  every  state  and  city,  this  man  alone,  with 
the  Rand  School,  publishes  a  couple  of  pamphlets  for 
the  purpose  of  effectively  stopping  enlistment  in  the 
army.  I  cannot  conceive  of  anything  more  absurd. 
It  is  too  bad  that  Mark  Twain  is  not  alive  now,  he  is 
the  man  that  really  ought  to  defend  a  case  of  this  kind. 

"I  tried  to  point  out,"  says  he  "that  the  ruling  class 
in  society,  the  people  in  charge  and  in  control  of  any 
society  would  do  well  to  realize  that  progress  is  bound 
to  be  made,  and  do  well  to  study  the  problems  of 
progress  and  see  that  they  were  sane  rather  than  the 
chaotic  progress.  Changes  will  come  anyway,  and 

238 


the  question  is  whether  they  will  come  wisely  or  in- 
sanely." 

What  do  you  think  of  a  man  writing  like  that?  And 
he  writes  like  that  before  we  are  in  our  present  situa- 
tion, which  is  more  or  less  serious.  We  all  regret  the 
present  industrial  situation  both  in  the  United  States 
and  in  other  countries.  We  live  in  a  country  where 
suggestions  from  men  of  ideas  are  the  foundation  of 
our  government,  and  those  ideas,  whether  lawful  or 
unlawful,  the  expression  of  them  you  can  never  pre- 
vent except  upon  the  theory  of  abolishing  the  govern- 
ment's own  act  in  passing  the  First  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  You  cannot  sup- 
press expression.  The  only  thing  you  can  do  is  drive 
it  into  subterranean  methods.  No  country  has  ever 
succeeded  except,  perhaps,  one,  and  that  one  existed 
in  the  thirteenth  century  where  the  persecution  was  so 
intense,  that  it  practically  destroyed  their  life,  their 
national  life,  and  at  the  same  time  those  with  religious 
views  different  from  their  own ;  and  yet  in  the  end. 
notwithstanding  hundreds  and  hundreds  were  tortured, 
buried,  killed,  yet  the  movement  continued  on  until  we 
reached  the  point  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century  or  even  in  the  seventeenth  century,  that  real 
progress  could  only  come  from  permitting  men  to  dis- 
cuss different  subjects,  especially  those  pertaining  to 
the  state. 

And  along  with  that,  let  me  mention  another  thing: 
it  may  be  suggested  by  counsel  that  the  first  amend- 
ment is  not  an  absolute  license  to  say  what  you  wish 
or  what  you  will.  For  instance,  you  cannot  slander 
a  man  or  a  woman,  if  you  do,  you  are  amenable  for 
that.  That  is  not  a  parallel  instance,  nor  a  license  for 
any  such  action. 

If,  for  instance  I  call  a  man  a  thief,  and  people  know 
of  it,  he  is  specifically  injured  by  that.  If  I  say  "here 


is  a  storekeeper  selling  or  putting  sand  in  sugar,"  he 
is  specifically  injured  by  that,  and  he  may  sue  me  for 
it.  If  I  say  "this  man  is  a  leper,"  and  he  is  shunned  by 
society,  he  may  prosecute  me.  You  know  how  that  is, 
and  see  the  difference  between  that  and  discussing  an 
economic  policy,  yes,  of  course ;  because  there  is  no 
special  damage  in  discussing  a  general  policy. 

There  may  be  the  class  damage.  For  instance,  thou- 
sands of  men  have  their  money  invested  in  breweries 
and  distilleries  throughout  the  United  States.  The 
prohibition  law  is  passed  by  legislative  enactment,  and 
instantly  that  mass  of  property  is  destroyed  or  dam- 
aged greatly,  and  that  man  may  receive  compensation 
or  those  men  may  receive  compensation,  depending 
upon  whether  or  not  in  the  Court  of  Claims,  the  Gov- 
ernment recognizes  it,  and  that  is  the  way  those  ques- 
tions are  tested,  when  millions  and  millions  of  dollars' 
worth  of  property  are  destroyed  and  wriped  out.  That 
is  a  class  damage. 

And  men  in  business,  they  are  buying  and  selling 
goods,  and  the  raising  or  lowering  of  tariff,  along  with 
it  the  industry  rises  or  falls;  that  is  a  class  damage. 
That  is  not  a  damage  to  a  person. 

So  the  suggestion  that  it  does  not  guarantee  free 
expression  may  be  true,  but  it  does  not  apply  to  the 
question  of  discussing  a  governmental  policy.  And 
along  with  that  proposition  of  the  prohibition  we  have 
it  tallying  to  some  extent  with  the  theories  which  are 
after  all  simply  an  analysis  of  events  and  conditions 
and  prospective  conditions — we  have  the  theories  ad- 
vanced by  the  defendant. 

A  defendant  can  have  any  theory  he  wants,  legally, 
and  if  he  believes  that  he  can  secure  a  majority  of  the 
American  people  to  agree  with  him,  all  well  and  good, 
then  his  theory  prevails.  But  if  they  disagree  with  him, 
then  we  say  he  is  not  right,  those  who  do  not  agree 

240 


with  him.  We  only  know  of  one  way  of  advance  and 
that  is  by  getting  the  majority  to  agree  with  you. 
That  is  his  trouble.  If  he  gets  them,  then  it  is  done 
that  way,  and  in  that  way  the  majority  of  the  people 
believe  in  that  theory  which  is  not  his  theory  today; 
but  the  minority  today  fail  to  accept  the  theory  of  the 
majority  and  reserve  to  themselves  the  right  to  still 
convince  the  other  people  that  they  are  wrong. 

You  cannot  take  away  the  right  of  the  minority  to- 
day without  realizing  that  tomorrow  you  may  need 
the  minority.  There  is  no  chance  that  you  will  be  in 
the  majority  a  day  hence  or  a  month  hence  or  a  year 
hence,  with  the  kaleidoscopic  changes  going  on,  no 
man  knows  when  his  so-called  status  in  a  religious 
sense  or  his  ideas  or  his  point  of  view  may  be  attacked. 
They  may  be  modified  by  great  changes  that  are  com- 
ing, and  by  important  circumstances. 

I  mentioned  the  First  Amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion quoted  by  the  defendant  not  to  antagonize  the 
theory  of  the  law,  which  no  doubt  the  Court  will  give 
you,  and  when  I  say  no  doubt,  of  course  no  man  can 
guess  exactly  what  the  Court  will  give  the  jury,  no 
more  than  I  can,  counsel's  argument,  except  with  a 
measured  degree,  he  may  say  that  the  First  Amend- 
ment is  not,  and  cannot  be  used  by  the  defendant  to 
excuse  the  commission  of  a  crime.  That  is  true. 

In  other  words,  if  Scott  Nearing  says,  "I  am  going 
to  stop  recruiting;  I  am  going  to  obstruct  the  service; 
I  am  going  to  create  insubordination ;  I  am  going  to 
protect  myself  under  the  First  Amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution"— if  that  was  in  his  mind  of  course  he  could 
not  use  it;  but  if  he  believed  in  that,  believed  in  it 
with  the  faith  which  Americans  for  a  long  time  had 
in  it,  and  were  proud  of  it,  and  we  were  brought  up 
to  be  proud  of  it  in  our  schools,  we  then  would  go  to 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  he  wilfully — it  would 

241 


be  an  element  in  determining,  whether  he  wilfully  was 
violating  a  law  with  which  he  is  charged  with  a  viola- 
tion of  here.  If  he  had  full  faith  in  the  fact,  that  is 
if  he  thought  that  the  interpretation  of  that  gave  him 
the  right  to  express  his  belief,  then  it  would  go  to  that. 
In  other  words,  to  show  that  there  was  not  a  stubborn 
and  reckless  attempt  to  break  the  law  which  he  has 
been  charged  with  violating  here. 

In  this  case  the  minor  act  charged,  the  one  that  you 
are  to  determine  really  by  your  verdict,  so  far  as  the 
record  is  concerned,  is  limited ;  and  the  other  one  is 
quite  broad ;  that  is  the  one  to  the  degree  of  tolerance 
which  the  American  people  propose  now  to  show,  and 
which  they  must  show  now  or  show  not  at  all,  —  I 
mean  by  that,  you  cannot  make  one  degree  of  law  dur- 
ing war  time  and  one  during  peace ;  and  we  will  show 
in  the  other  the  degree  to  which  the  American  people 
reverence  traditions  of  their  country,  and  revere  the 
constitution. 

I  think,  and  I  may  say,  to  you  gentlemen,  that  the 
history  of  this  country  can  hardly  be  written  with- 
out a  list  of  the  names  of  a  few  of  my  ancestors.  I 
think  that  the  tradition  of  this  country  on  the  con- 
scription law  was  the  most  alarming  thing  that  had 
taken  place.  What  do  we  understand  the  word,  tradi- 
tion, to  mean?  It  is  the  habit  of  thought.  I  still  be- 
lieve the  ordinary  man  moves  his  body  virtually  by  the 
development  of  personal  habits.  He  has  a  way  of  look- 
ing when  he  is  crossing  the  street.  His  feet  move 
habitually,  he  has  learned  it  after  a  struggle,  a  con- 
siderable struggle,  when  he  was  an  infant ;  he  has  cer- 
tain habits  of  dress  and  in  doing  work;  and  it  follows 
a  constant  mental  attitude  wrhich  was  a  habit  as  of  the 
people  of  this  country  for  many,  many  years,  that  we 
would  not  send  an  expeditionary  force  to  any  other 
country;  that  European  concerns  were  none  of  ours — 

242 


I  don't  say  but  what  they  may  have  been,  but  I  am 
showing  what  the  thought  generally  was;  that  we  did 
not  believe  in  standing  armies  and  if  an  army  were 
needed  we  would  simply  call  upon  the  States,  and  let 
each  State  furnish  its  quota  in  such  way  as  it  might 
be  able. 

England  resisted  conscription  for  years,  for  a  long 
time;  Ireland  resisted  it,  and  England  went  about  to 
enforce  it,  but  it  was  never  enforced  upon  them. 
Canada  did  not  enforce  conscription  at  all  until  after 
we  did  it.  Australia  not  at  all.  We  changed  almost 
over  night.  Can  you  wonder  that  Lord  Northcliffe 
said  about  the  American  people,  when  looking  at  them 
through  a  window  of  one  of  our  buildings:  "A  most 
docile  people,  a  most  docile  people." 

And  when  a  nation  breaks  its  habits  so  easily,  it 
indicates  that  there  is  a  want  in  the  measure  of  stabil- 
ity which  we  ordinarily  expect  in  an  individual  who 
has  fixed  habits,  and  people  who  have  kept  true  to 
these  traditions,  that  is,  that  the  privilege  and  the 
right  of  speaking  should  be  protected  completely  un- 
der the  law. 

We  need  never  fear  one  great  and  substantial  prin- 
ciple and  that  is,  say  what  you  please,  accept  the  law 
as  the  majority  declare  it;  that  is,  that  power  must 
reside  with  a  free  and  pure  selection,  with  a  full  and 
complete  opportunity  for  every  voter  and  every  per- 
son who  should  be  a  voter — and  by  that  I  include  the 
women — the  right  to  express  their  opinions,  and  when 
that  law  is  made,  you  will  accept  and  obey  it,  always 
carrying  with  that  the  right  to  oppose  that,  to  change 
that,  to  remedy  that,  to  modify  or  repeal  it.  With 
that  we  will  have  absolute  and  final  safety  to  our 
course  of  progress  and  development,  but  the  moment 
you  strike  that  down,  you  can  measure  almost  in  years, 
the  time  when  those  who  will  have  sown  the  wind  will 

243 


reap  the  whirlwind,  that  is  inevitable.  Neither  can 
any  body  or  group  of  men  belong  in  the  majority  who 
attempt  to  hold  up  the  rights  of  others  and  stifle 
thought  and  growth  of  expressions  of  others.  You  can- 
not do  that,  gentlemen,  you  cannot  do  it  in  conscience, 
you  cannot  do  it. 

And  still  we  have  this  question  right  here :  this  man 
here  has  expressed  his  honest,  conscientious  view  and 
he  is  trying  to  carry  out  his  theory  of  the  economic 
purposes  and  programme ;  he  is  a  member  of  a  politi- 
cal party  which  has  millions  and  millions  of  men  both 
in  the  United  States  and  other  countries.  As  he  de- 
clared on  the  stand,  they  were  in  the  army  of 
Germany  and  France,  Italy  and  England,  the  soldiers 
there  were  socialists,  and  had  declared  their  belief  as 
such ;  the  Italian  socialists  believed  that  war  was  the 
result  of  economic  conflict,  those  in  France  the  same 
as  those  in  Germany,  as  well  as  in  other  places,  and 
they  believed  that  the  economic  support  of  economic 
life  of  the  nation  \vas  vital,  and  that  economically  you 
can  bring  about  changes. 

It  was  absolutely  after  that  kind  of  a  declaration  of 
their  feelings  that  industry  and  social  conditions  that 
existed  there  could  be  changed  by  such  methods,  that 
with  that  in  their  minds  they  went  into  the  army  and 
the  boys  assumed,  that  is,  those  that  went,  that  is  the 
youthful  and  younger  members  in  the  United  States, 
assumed  that  they  had  a  right  to  know  the  truth.  Is 
it  to  our  credit,  that  we  equipped  an  army,  or  raised 
an  army  by  fancy  fairy  tales?  Can  we  only  depend 
on  the  safety  of  this  country  by  assuming  that  it  is 
quite  proper  to  raise  an  army  by  half  the  facts  and  dis- 
torted statements?  If  the  facts  were  on  the  side  of 
those  in  opposition  to  Nearing,  what  have  we  to  fear? 
How  many  newspapers  were  denied  the  right  to  freely 
print  the  facts?  How  many  newspapers  in  Buffalo, 

344 


Chicago,  San  Francisco,  New  Orleans,  St.  Paul — hun- 
dreds of  them.  How  many  magazines  continuously 
run  off  by  the  ream  from  the  press,  from  the  "Saturday 
Post"  to  the  "New  Republic,"  one  paper  after  another, 
one  magazine  after  another.  The  churches,  the  speak- 
ers, the  Congressmen,  Senators,  the  President,  if  they 
were  right,  don't  you  think  they  could  tolerate  one 
man  who  was  wrong?  And  if  the  one  man  is  right 
don't  you  think  it  is  quite  right  that  the  majority 
should  begin  to  realize  that  they  are  wrong? 

During  the  War  of  the  Rebellion,  the  newspapers 
criticised  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  there  was  talk,  and 
attempts  made  to  take  steps  to  suppress  them — and 
by  the  way  only  one  or  two  editions  of  one  or  two 
papers  were  suppressed — and  he  said  "No,  if  they  are 
right,  their  opinions  should  prevail  against  mine,  and 
those  associated  with  me;  if  they  are  wrong,  then  in 
the  course  of  time  they  will  be  discovered  by  the 
people  and  it  will  do  no  harm."  That  is  a  safe  prin- 
ciple upon  which  to  proceed. 

Our  country  was  not  invaded,  it  was  not  in  such 
a  grave  difficulty  as  to  warrant  the  arrest  or  indicting 
of  Scott  Nearing  in  a  case  of  this  kind  for  the  issuing 
of  a  pamphlet  of  this  kind  of  forty-four  pages,  and  its 
publication  by  the  Rand  School.  A  man  with  a  wife 
and  with  a  couple  of  young  children,  four  and  six  years 
of  age,  is  taking  no  chance,  is  not  proposing  to  enter 
the  penitentiary  and  leave  their  happiness  and  their 
home,  he  is  not  walking  away  from  his  fireside,  he  is 
not  walking  away  from  his  friends  and  leaving  his 
family  surroundings  and  his  friends  and  his  associates 
and  writing  a  pamphlet  committing  an  offense  of  this 
kind,  if  it  was  an  offense,  as  I  stated  before,  if  he  in- 
tended to  do  a  thing  like  that  he  would  have  done  it 
directly  and  openly  and  it  would  have  really  resulted 
in  something,  the  actual  commission  of  something, 

245 


and  there  would  have  something  actually  resulted 
therefrom,  it  would  not  have  simply  then  been  regarded 
as  a  readable  instrument. 

The  reasonable  doubts  that  you  are  supposed  and 
required  to  have  eliminated  from  your  mind  before 
finding  a  verdict  of  guilty  are  not  presumptions  alone 
of  law,  but  they  are  human  presumptions.  They  have 
a  deeper  basis  than  merely  legal  form, — humanity.  It 
is  only  by  thinking  of  all  of  the  facts  surrounding  a 
given  circumstance,  a  man  does  certain  things,  we 
think  of  his  family,  his  friends  and  society  in  arriving 
at  this  question  of  presumption.  It  is  by  that  that  we 
can  measure  their  movements. 

This  is  a  case  prosecuted  in  the  name  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. I  realize  that  oftentimes  when  a  prosecu- 
tion is  made  in  the  name  of  the  Government,  we  are 
very  apt  to  think  by  reason  of  that  fact  that  it  leans, 
or  that  the  line  draws  slightly  to  the  side  of  the  Gov- 
ernment— not  at  all. 

The  millions  and  millions  of  people  in  the  United 
States,  and  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  soldiers  in 
the  United  States,  are  not  after  Scott  Nearing  for  tell- 
ing the  truth  in  a  pamphlet,  they  are  not  asking  his 
imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary;  and  counsel  in  his 
opening  intimated  that  the  punishment  was  for  the 
Court,  that  it  might  be  from  one  day  up  to  ten  years, 
with  a  fine  of  from  one  cent  up  to  ten  thousand  dollars ; 
but  I  tell  you,  and  you  know  it  for  yourselves,  that 
upon  a  finding  of  guilty  for  this  offense,  it  does  not 
mean  an  insignificant  penalty  at  all.  The  penalty  will 
be  measured  by  the  gravity  of  the  offense  which  your 
verdict  determines.  Your  verdict  is  not  on  an  insig- 
nificant proposition.  It  is  determining  whether  dur- 
ing a  war  these  two  parties,  the  school  with  its  four 
thousand  pupils  and  its  influence,  its  teachers,  and 
Scott  Nearing  with  his  friends  and  those  with  whom 

246 


he  is  acquainted,  whether  they  were  engaged  in  com- 
mitting a  crime  against  the  country  by  trying  to  de- 
stroy the  effectiveness  of  the  internal  management  of 
its  army.  Can  you  think  of  any  greater  crime  in  war 
time  than  for  men  to  try  to  induce  privates  to  rebel 
against  their  superiors?  Cannot  you  see  that  that 
would  merit  a  severe  punishment?  Cannot  you  see? 
Can  you  see  anything  more  severe  than  such  a  situa- 
tion, if  you  were  raising  an  army,  than  to  have  some- 
one go  among  them  and  stop  them  when  the  country 
is  trying  to  raise  them,  and  try  to  obstruct  those 
efforts?  The  charge  is  grave,  and  the  punishment  will 
be  commensurate  with  that. 

Assuming  a  logical  application  of  punishment  in 
view  of  the  charge  which  is  made — and  I  recall  this 
to  your  mind  because  counsel  brought  it  out,  other- 
wise I  would  have  said  nothing  about  it  because  it  is 
not  within  the  purview  of  an  attorney  to  comment  on 
the  punishment,  as  that  is  exclusively  for  the  Court. 
The  grave  consequences,  though,  of  verdicts,  is  that 
which  would  stimulate  in  the  mind  of  a  juryman  al- 
ways to  be  alert  to  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  pre- 
sumption of  reasonable  doubt  alive  and,  gentlemen, 
you  are  now  in  a  position  in  this  case  to  decide  as 
between  the  Government  on  the  one  hand  and  these 
defendants  on  the  other. 

When  counsel  for  the  Government  says  it  is  of  grave 
concern  to  the  Government,  I  join  and  say,  sure  it  is, 
yes,  but  I  want  to  say  that  I  would  not  expect  and  I 
do  not  expect  a  verdict  that  is  not  warranted  by  what 
has  been  presented  to  you,  and  I  think  that  is  well 
stated,  that  it  should  raise  a  certain  hesitancy  in  your 
mind,  on  these  facts  that  have  been  presented  to  you 
here. 

We  are  fighting  under  the  theory  that  we  want  the 
truth ;  that  we  are  entitled  to  the  entire  truth,  when 

247 


we  make  up  our  conclusions,  and  not  that  we  should 
be  fed  on  half  truths,  and  when  we  get  an  opinion  from 
what  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain  as  the  truth,  we 
want  the  opportunity  to  express  those  opinions  freely 
that  others  may  possibly  see  our  view.  We  want  the 
information  from  all  sources  and  to  that  we  are  en- 
titled. The  people  are  entitled  to  change  their  judg- 
ment, for  a  judgment  based  on  error  and  only  half 
the  truth  will  never  be  a  good  judgment.  We  ask  that 
you  say  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  by  your 
verdict  in  this  case  that  its  citizens  have  the  right  to 
have  the  facts  fully  told,  and  to  also  vindicate  the  right 
of  the  people  to  state  their  theoretical  conclusions  and 
their  ideas  and  their  views  and  also  that  they  should 
not  be  imprisoned  because  of  conscientiously  and  hon- 
estly stating  them,  and  because  there  may  be  some 
speculation  about  someone  having  committed  an 
offense  by  a  wrongful  use  of  a  phrase  here  and  there. 
You  cannot  stake  the  liberty  of  a  nation,  which  is  the 
liberty  of  the  press  and  the  right  to  speak  on  possibil- 
ities and  the  chance  of  someone  being  led  astray  by 
the  publication  of  a  pamphlet  or  a  leaflet  or  speech. 
Take  no  such  chance  with  it,  gentlemen,  and  if  there 
is  any  leaning  to  be  done,  take  no  chance  upon  it,  take 
your  chances  upon  the  side  of  the  freest  possible  ex- 
pression of  it,  because  only  in  that  way  can  we  be  sure 
that  a  man  will  not  be  carrying  around  harbored  in 
his  heart  vicious  dislike  towards  the  constitution  or 
to  the  form  of  the  government  under  which  he  lives, 
and  that  government  will  command  the  man's  respect 
which  gives  the  greatest  opportunity  for  praise  and 
blame,  and  no  government,  no  country  is  entitled  to 
compliment  if  it  does  not  rise  to  meet  the  light  of  cen- 
sure or  criticism. 


248 


The   Verdict 

At  the  close  of  the  trial  and  before  the  case  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  jury,  the  Court  (Judge  Julius  M.  Mayer) 
upon  motion  of  the  attorneys  for  the  defendants,  dis- 
missed the  first  and  second  counts  of  the  indictment, 
holding  that  there  had  not  been  sufficient  evidence 
adduced  to  prove  a  conspiracy  between  the  defendants. 
The  court  submitted  the  case  to  the  jury  on  the  third 
and  fourth  counts.  The  jury  found  Scott  Nearing  not 
guilty  and  the  American  Socialist  Society  guilty  on 
the  third  and  fourth  counts.  After  the  verdict  had 
been  rendered  the  defendants'  attorneys'  motion  to  set 
aside  the  verdict  against  the  Society  was  granted  as 
to  the  third  count  and  decision  was  reserved  by  the 
Court  upon  the  motion  to  set  aside  the  verdict  against 
the  Society  as  to  the  fourth  count.  Briefs  were  sub- 
mitted on  the  motion  and  the  Court  later  denied  the 
motion,  at  the  same  time  writing  an  opinion.  Upon 
the  day  set  for  sentence,  March  21st,  1919,  the  Court 
imposed  a  fine  of  three  thousand  dollars  against  the 
Society.  The  maximum  fine  provided  by  the  Espion- 
age Law  is  ten  thousand  dollars.  The  Court  allowed 
the  attorneys  for  the  Society  until  April  14th,  1919, 
to  submit  a  writ  of  error  which  the  Court  stated  it 
would  allow,  such  a  writ  of  error  being  a  necessary 
part  of  the  procedure  connected  with  an  appeal  either 
to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  or  to 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  The  Court  granted 
a  stay  of  execution  on  the  fine  until  April  14,  1919, 
without  requiring  the  Society  to  file  any  security. 


249 


The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science 

Located  in 
THE   PEOPLE'S   HOUSE 

7  East  15th  Street,  New  York  City 

The  Training  School  of  the  Workers 
of  oAmerica 

Algernon  Lee — Educational  Director 

TRAINING  CLASSES  (102) 
LOCAL  EVENING  COURSES  (103) 
CORRESPONDENCE  DEPARTMENT  (104) 
SUMMER  SCHOOL  (105) 

Send  for  descriptive  circulars  by  numbers  given  above,  to 
Mrs.  Bertha  H.  Mailly,  Executive  Secretary,  7  East  15th 
Street,  New  York  City. 


"I  would  found  an  institution  for  the  teaching  of  the 
Social  Sciences  from  the  standpoint  of  Socialism." 

—CARRIE  A.  RAND 

Founder  of  The   Rand   School  of  Social   Science. 


"Merely  fighting  the  capitalist  system  should  not  be 
our  aim.  What  is  of  far  more  consequence  is  that  we 
educate  the  masses  of  workers.  It  is  the  power  of 
knowledge  that  will  triumph  over  the  dark  forces.  If 
we  can  teach  the  truth  to  the  people,  they  will  free 
themselves."  —ELIZABETH  BAER. 


The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science 

7  EAST  15th  STREET 
New  York  City 

Offers  the  Following  Courses 
by  Correspondence 

1.  Elements  of  Socialism By  Anna  A.  Maley 

2.  Social  History By  Algernon  Lee 

3.  Socialist  Economics ..By  Algernon  Lee 

4.  The  Labor  Movement, 

By  Morris  Hillquit  and  Others 

5.  The  Human  Element  in  Economics, 

By  Scott  Nearing 

6.  The  Fundamentals  of  Socialism, 

David  P.  Berenberg- 

FEES  LOW 

Ask  for  Descriptive  Circular  104 

Address 

DAVID  P.  BERENBERG 

Director  of  Correspondence  Department 

7  East  15th  Street,  New  York  City 


American  Labor  Year  Book 

1917-1918 

A  volume  of  384  pages  of  written  and  tabular  matter 
indispensable  to  every  student  of  the  Socialist  and 
Labor  movements. 

Edited  by 

ALEXANDER  TRACHTENBERG 

Director,  Department  of  Labor  Research 

Rand  School  of  Social  Science 

A  comprehensive  survey  of  the  progress  of  the  So- 
cialist and  Labor  movements  in  the  United  States  and 
abroad  and  a  compilation  of  facts  concerning  political, 
social  and  economic  conditions. 

Among  the  contributors  are  the  following: 

Professor  Scott  Nearing,  Florence  Kelley,  Morris 
Hillquit,  William  Green,  Secretary,  United  Mine 
Workers'  of  America,  Mayor  D.  Hoan  of  Milwaukee, 
Professor  George  G.  Groat,  W.  S.  Carter,  President, 
Brotherhood  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen, 
Basil  M.  Manly,  Ph.  Snowden,  M.  P.,  Dr.  I.  M.  Rubi- 
now,  Dr.  Helen  L.  Sumner,  Fred  Hewitt,  Int.  Ma- 
chinists' Union,  Prof.  W.  F.  Ogburn,  Dr.  G.  M.  Price. 

Order  Now — Edition  Is  Limited 

Single  copies Paper-bound,  60  cents;  Cloth, $1.25 

Both  1916  and  1917-18  issues Paper-bound,    1.00 

Cloth  bound,    2.00 

Special  prices  in  large  quantities 

Order  from 

RAND     BOOK     STORE 

7  EAST  15th  STREET 

New  Y«rk 


PUBLICATIONS 

OF 
THE  RAND  SCHOOL  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 

Communist  Manifesto Marx  and  Engels  lOc. 

American  Labor  Year  Book, 

(Edited  by  Trachtenberg)  Paper,  60c.    Cloth,  $1.25 

Socialism  Summed  Up Hillquit  lOc. 

Work  and  Pay Nearing  lOc. 

The  Coal  Question Nearing  lOc. 

Woman  of  the  Future Lilienthal  5c. 

Debs'  Decision Nearing  lOc. 

From  Fireside  to  Factory Lilienthal  lOc. 

American  Socialists  and  the  War, 

(Edited  by  Trachtenberg) lOc. 

Must  We  Arm  (Debate— Hillquit-Gardner) lOc. 

Public  Ownership  Throughout  the  World, 

Laidler  lOc. 

Food  and  the  People Waldman  lOc. 

Socialists  in  the  Board  of  Aldermen  (N.  Y.), 

Clark  and  Solomon  lOc. 
Socialists  in  the  New  York  Assembly, 

Claessens  and  Feigenbaum  25c. 

Socialism Berenberg  lOc. 

Bolsheviks  and  Soviets Williams  lOc. 

Address  All  Communications  Concerning  Books  to 

RAND  BOOK  STORE 
7  East  15th  Street,  New  York  City 


THE   RAIND  BOOK  STORE 

THE  RAND  BOOK  STORE  is  located  on  the  ground 
floor  of  the  People's  House,  and  its  collection  of  Socialist 
and  radical  books  and  magazines  cannot  be  excelled  any- 
where in  America. 

Started  originally  to  cater  to  the  needs  of  the  students 
of  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science,  it  has  developed  to 
the  point  where  it  serves  a  large  number  of  Socialists, 
radicals  and  labor  men  and  women  in  America. 

All  books  that  are  part  of  progressive  thought  are  sure  to 
be  found  on  the  shelves  of  THE  RAND  BOOK  STORE. 

SPECIAL  LIBRARIES 

One  of  the  important  features  of  THE  RAND  BOOK 
STORE  is  the  selection  of  libraries  on  special  topics  to  meet 
the  demands  from  all  over  the  country  for  recommended 
reading.  The  Rand  Book  Store  has  enlisted  some  of  the 
leading  scholars  to  prepare  lists  on  such  subjects  as  Social- 
ism, Labor,  American  History,  European  History,  Econo- 
mics, Sociology,  Philosophy,  Science,  Education,  etc. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS 

THE  RAND  BOOK  STORE  will  be  glad  to  take  sub- 
scriptions for  all  magazines  and  newspapers  published  in  the 
United  States  and  Europe,  and  assures  prompt  service. 

INCOME    DEVOTED    TO    EDUCATION 

The  patrons  of  THE  RAND  BOOK  STORE  give  sub- 
stantial support  to  radical  education  since  all  the  profit  is 
turned  over  to  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science,  the  only 
Socialist  Training  School  for  the  working  class  in  America. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 
Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


A     000  033  704 


